Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Will there be hidden/unlockables in this game?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
After the cold war, I remember somebody came up with the term "hyperpower" to describe the US as the world's sole remaining superpower at the time. There can be more than one superpower in the world, like during the cold war, and probably now. A hyperpower, by definition, is supreme.

The British Empire may have been a hyperpower at the top of its power, though it didn't militarily dominate Europe at the time.
 
JanH said:
After the cold war, I remember somebody came up with the term "hyperpower" to describe the US as the world's sole remaining superpower at the time. There can be more than one superpower in the world, like during the cold war, and probably now. A hyperpower, by definition, is supreme.

The British Empire may have been a hyperpower at the top of its power, though it didn't militarily dominate Europe at the time.
Click to expand...

Britan was a major power, a naval super power, but not a global super power. At its height, it was still rivaled by France, Germany, Russia. The US dominance of today is really unrivaled in history. Its on top of a mountain and its a long way down until no.2.
 
hitchens said:
Britan was a major power, a naval super power, but not a global super power. At its height, it was still rivaled by France, Germany, Russia. The US dominance of today is really unrivaled in history. Its on top of a mountain and its a long way down until no.2.
Click to expand...

I'm quite curious how, given the points raised, you can still claim Britain was not a "global superpower" without any explanation. Especially given the fact that the British Empire was "the foremost global power" of its time. That's pretty definitive.

Also, after the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 the French effectively stopped being a global rival to Britain. The height of power (not size) for the British Empire was the mid 19th century I believe and not one single nation came close to the military, industrial and economic power exerted by the British Empire and was certainly not rivaled by the nations you mentioned. This was Britain's mountain top moment.

The mid 19th century was a time when Britain was a global superpower, industrial and economic powerhouse, and world leader in academia and research, widely regarded as a bastion of civilisation and enlightenment. Through it's navy the UK was able to act militarily around the globe and through economics it was able to influence any nation in the world to some extent. It's culture was mimicked and swallowed up worldwide.

Britain was at it's height an unrivaled military, economic, industrial, cultural and political superpower. This is what made Britain a superpower with global reach, a global superpower.
 
hitchens said:
Britan was a major power, a naval super power, but not a global super power. At its height, it was still rivaled by France, Germany, Russia. The US dominance of today is really unrivaled in history. Its on top of a mountain and its a long way down until no.2.
Click to expand...

And here we go again. The commonwealth was not rivalled by Germany or France. And especially not Russia. It was challenged, but it won every single important conflict back then.

They had holdings everywhere over the world. (Ok maybe not South America).

Rome was a global superpower. It had conquered everything within reach. Anything beyond its borders was practically worthless.

The US Dominance is a myth that the US wants to belief. Yes it was there. But right now? It isnt. It has already lost the lead as a economic powerhouse. 15% of US dominance is owned by China. The US has little to no say in many Muslim nations. China is off limits for US Superpower. Which in turn would remove superpower status from the US by your definition?

Basically Supowerwpoer is not defined by where the US is.

It was a term first applied in 1944 to the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

Thats the most common application of the word.

After the Cold War, only the United States appeared to fulfil the criteria to be considered a world superpower, although some scholars no longer consider it to be one. The term second superpower has also been applied by scholars to the possibility that China will emerge as second superpower on par with the United States.

And this is where the future will lead.

In the end, this is a public forum. So public/common definitions of words should be used.
 
Kaloor said:
They had holdings everywhere over the world. (Ok maybe not South America).
Click to expand...

While not exactly what you meant, Britain did/does have a holding in the shape of the Falkland Islands. Not continental South America but an adjacent group of islands. It acted as a coaling base for the navy for quite a while.
 
imperialman said:
I'm quite curious how, given the points raised, you can still claim Britain was not a "global superpower" without any explanation. Especially given the fact that the British Empire was "the foremost global power" of its time. That's pretty definitive.
Click to expand...

The term global superpower can only be used for the US. Great Britain was no where near projecting the type of power the US can.
As already mentioned, even at its peak the other European superpowers could rival the UK. No other great power today can rival the US.
 
hitchens said:
The term global superpower can only be used for the US. Great Britain was no where near projecting the type of power the US can.
As already mentioned, even at its peak the other European superpowers could rival the UK. No other great power today can rival the US.
Click to expand...

The UK at its peak was not rivaled, hence the whole "Pax Britannica" of the 19th century. Also, you seem to be claiming the UK was unable to project its power globally, this puzzles me due to the countless situations which saw UK forces act around the world from Africa and South America to China and Russia.

The term global superpower applies to superpowers with global influence, given the fact the UK controlled huge swathes of the world on every continent (except SA), I would argue that your claim of the UK not being a global superpower is nonsense. It was global in terms of reach and of actual area and it certainly was a superpower.

Also, "As already mentioned, even at its peak the other European superpowers could rival the UK", I believe this was dismissed earlier.
 
hitchens said:
The term global superpower can only be used for the US. Great Britain was no where near projecting the type of power the US can.
As already mentioned, even at its peak the other European superpowers could rival the UK. No other great power today can rival the US.
Click to expand...

Take one head.

Take a mallet you can swing comfortably.

Introduce component A to component B.

If you want to define the world as you see fit sure. If you want to use definitions of words the rest of the world uses differently, sure. Just make sure it isnt so obvious.

Basically PI community says: A large portion of the world agreed on the usage of the word X to be soandso.

You: But accoprding to me its different.

This discussion is starting to eat its own tail.
 
Oh good bloody god. Lets get some things straight;

Based on my study of Ancient history I can tell you Rome controlled more than just Rome... Or even just major Italy. It controlled Greece, A large part of Africa, most of Europe including the lower half of Britain. A large part of the more easter/asian territories as well. Quite frankly it was MASSIVE for the time.

Your belief that Britain isn't a super power is absolutely and utterly incorrect. It is categorical false. It is flawed. You sir are wrong. Your comments have not been backed up by the statements of any books, physical proof or fact. They are just statements and your comments like "Rome only controlled Rome". "China has/never had influence out of China" show such a huge degree of Ignorance that you have begun to offend me.

Britain forged the system of Liberty and free trade along with countries like France. Liberty is in it's foundation a FRENCH word. However Napoleon twisted that. Britain fought France and Spain. Beat them both and ground them into little pieces. The result was the world largest power that has EVER existed. It controlled that power through the use of Maritime supremacy and trade. By controlling and sanctioning trade opponents could only ever become as powerful as Britain wished. Furthermore it allowed Britain to observe and gain a lot of information from other countries. The Royal Navy secured this by ensuring that in any part of the globe pirates, patrols, smuggling was constantly engaged and kept to a minimum. Furthermore it ensured that no other country could attempt to gain an unfair advantage with trade. If a country was at war with Britain it no longer had access to port goods.

At the time trade by sea was the superior method. It still is.

As a result the large armies of Germany meant nothing. They were irelevant because Britain could force an opponent to fight on the battlefield they wished. As a result they held the advantage in both position, quantity and potentially quality. This was shown true in world war 1 when effectively the German war machine would have fought harder, faster and longer. A lack of supplies and equipment along with the knowledge the RN was sitting outside their home town effectively meant Germany was always going to lose.... Sadly for the world France was not in the same position and thus we still had to fight a land war. In many ways WW1 may have been easier if France had remained Neutral allowing Britain to starve Germany to death and engage in a maritime conflict over a longer period of time.

The Royal Navy was larger than the next two largest navies in the world. It was also up to date. It was a time of fantastic engineering. Indeed during the time of Britain as a super power many of the key progressions in humanity were made... Industrial revolution, Beginnings of proper Chemisty and Physics. Numerous examples.

The amount of relative power that America can project is exceptionally small. Simply because without Oil America is screwed... It doesn't own the oil or the countries with the oil meaning it must toe the line to them or invade them and then face the rest of the world. For all its military might many would argue that America is powerless because it has missed the chance to develop the same industrial, social, political and education might that drove the Empire.... Which is sad considering the space race gave the Presidents of America the chance to do it.

Get off your high seat and accept the dictionary definitions of the word Super Power. Accept the opinion of multiple professors of History, Politics and other various subjects.

To the Moderators; If this post was too agressive I apologise and I would appreciate being notified I will then seek to edit it. However I find the concept that someone can ignore the defined and explained language and fact as accepted by people far more intelligent than most of us can dream of being as wholy offensive and quite frankly a method of trolling in it's own right!
 
Brutoni said:
Oh good bloody god. Lets get some things straight;

Based on my study of Ancient history I can tell you Rome controlled more than just Rome... Or even just major Italy. It controlled Greece, A large part of Africa, most of Europe including the lower half of Britain. A large part of the more easter/asian territories as well. Quite frankly it was MASSIVE for the time.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and that was Rome. Rome was the entire Roman empire. In the same way China was the entire Chinese empire. The USA is the first global superpower in the history of man. No other superpower can do or could do what the US could.
 
hitchens said:
Yeah, and that was Rome. Rome was the entire Roman empire. In the same way China was the entire Chinese empire. The USA is the first global superpower in the history of man. No other superpower can do or could do what the US could.
Click to expand...

Haven't you read any of what was posted to counter that claim?
 
hitchens said:
Yeah, and that was Rome. Rome was the entire Roman empire. In the same way China was the entire Chinese empire. The USA is the first global superpower in the history of man.
Click to expand...


The USA doesn't even come close to owning a Quarter of the total land mass of the world.
The USA does have supremacy of the worlds ocean for the moment.
The USA doesn't have 1/4 of the worlds population under direct rule/citizenship
The USA doesn't have the Industry monopoly
The USA doesn't have an academic monopoly

The British Empire had all of the above and more... Did you even read my post..

No other superpower can do or could do what the US could
Click to expand...

What you mean like the USSR that enter into an arms race and cold war with the US... Which resulted in the US HAVING TO FORGE AN ALLIANCE CALLED NATO OR LOSE THE COLD WAR

What you mean like the BRITISH EMPIRE that was the largest, most powerful, move all encompassing empire in the history of man... The phrase "The sun never sets on the Empire" means so many things, metephorically and otherwise.

What you mean like the Roman Empire... Hell or even the Persian Empire... Or the Mongolian Hoards that brought China, Europe, Asia and the Middle east to their knees.

How much more ignorance can you demonstrate?? May I ask if you are from America? I'd be curious for you to provide books, sources and facts to back up your opinion?

In FACT;
Lets do that... I'm that confident that I am right I will lay down a challenge.. Despite having a full time job, an Admiralty interview this month for joining the Royal Navy, a family and a life I am fairly confident that I can win this...

So if you are so sure, write a post of any length that you see fit within the next week. Providing references, providing sources of information... Attempting to look at both sides of the argument. THEN make you conclusions. I will do the same. The rest of the community can discuss the articles and perhaps then we can have a resolution!

Or you can refuse of course... I mean after all I'm just from Britain, this tiny insignificant island that has never had any real power in the world. Nor has any other country... What possible threat can one of us pose to the reputation of such an almighty power as the USA.
 
hitchens said:
I have skimmed through them, but it seems none of them are relevant.
Click to expand...

That's the problem then, I suggest you read them as they are extremely relevant and counter your points.
 
hitchens said:
Yeah, and that was Rome. Rome was the entire Roman empire. In the same way China was the entire Chinese empire. The USA is the first global superpower in the history of man. No other superpower can do or could do what the US could.
Click to expand...

OMG ^^.

Youre funny.

Seriously.

Babylon 5.

"We just rewrote the dictionary."

(Guess what type of government did that :p)

Brutoni said:
The USA doesn't even come close to owning a Quarter of the total land mass of the world.
The USA does have supremacy of the worlds ocean for the moment.
The USA doesn't have 1/4 of the worlds population under direct rule/citizenship
The USA doesn't have the Industry monopoly
The USA doesn't have an academic monopoly
Click to expand...

BTW. The Commonwealth wasnt owned by China for 15% because of loans.......
 
Mid-Nineteenth century Britain had a power-projection that, quite frankly, the US only fleetingly acquired in between 1944 and 1949. Britain held the economy of the world in its palm and almost a monoploy on academia - and Britain held this position with major rivals until around 1899. Britain could land troops on any shore and starve the other "powers" into submission - read of the famines in central Europe of 1918-19 and even the very development of a beetroot industry a a Naploeonic counterpoint to the inability to import sugar from friendly S. American nations due to the nascent Royal Navy. The US does have great aerial superiority, and a great number of non-conventional arms, but it is absolutely clear that the US does not have either the friends nor the means to bring to heel any major combatant, apart for (and I do say this sadly), any European powers. A US attempt to face China, or Russia, India, or even Brazil is going to end in failure. Perhaps not a "loss" for the US, but certainly no Victory.

Furthermore, far more so than Britain, the US is incredibly vulnerable logistically, an recent events in the middle east and the growing sway China holds across the Central Asian Republics is only increasing this vulnerability. If the "Only Global Superpower in the history of man" cannot win one massively asymmetric war against the poorest nation on earth, without any other nation in the world supporting the Taliban (unlike the 1980s), how can you honestly maintain that the US is singular and unique? (As a nice aside, see the Second Anglo-Afgan War).

On a slightly different note, maintaining the "Rome was the Roman Empire" and China "only ruled China", while technically correct, is wrong in the spirit of the debate. Rome was the only Global superpower in its world, and only recently (in China's long history) have the Chinese authorities not also believed the same. China was the world, and everything outside was not worth conquering. The Persian Empire, too, controlled all they felt (realistically given the technology of the time) existed, apart from some minor cities on the boundaries of the world, which constantly fought and worshipped strange Gods. Persia, indeed, held over 40% of the population of the world under its thumb.

It is said Alexander, upon seeing the breadth of his domain, wept for a lack of worlds to conquer. The fact that these empires existed at when their idea of the entirety of power was less than it is today does not diminish their achievements. Even if, one day, humanity populates more than world, more than this solar system, more than now, that does not diminish the power that the US holds today, or Britain yesterday, or Rome before that too. Their world may have been smaller than ours, but ours is not the totality of being, and it never will be.
 
bnnr,

Excellent post. Though I do want to know why you believe the US could bring the largest collective economy to its knees? Especially when you look at the academic, industrial and man power the EU has.... The US only really has the major advantage in a single ruling body and a public with a greater wish for good defence!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back