Talk:List of modern great powers/Archive 1

Split

As noted in the edit summary, this page was created (split) from List of pre-modern great powers. tahc ^chat 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Should India be in the timeline at the bottom?

I assume, going off of mentions in other articles like "Emerging Powers" that deem India a potential "superpower", that India should already be considered a current "great power"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yang1171 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Republic of India hasn't been considered that fashionable as WW2 era contemporary great powers. It's emergence as major economic & military force relatively recent. Although, its unsure status should mentioned here at least in a small paragraph, as India isn't considered a middle power either be is cause of its larger clout. India had been seeking a permanent seat for UNSC which would hyphenate position along with considered great powers (P5). Lack of same makes its status somewhat like "informal". It's an emerging power essentially which is considered an emerging superpower as it has already emerged as a great power (personally saying). - Comment added by Aman (talk)

If you can find sources supporting it, add it. It is one of the states with states with nuclear weapons, it has the 2nd largest number of active military personnel on the planet (following China), and the 7th largest nominal GDP on the planet, trailing behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a list

This article (currently named "List of modern great powers") isn't a list, although several of its sections are written in bullet points rather than paragraphs. Surely the prose should be merged into great power, and an actual list take its place? Or should it be renamed (something like "Historical development of modern great powers" maybe)? Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This article should not be a list

This article (currently named "List of modern great powers") isn't a list, although several of its sections are written in bullet points rather than paragraphs. Surely the prose should be merged into great power, and an actual list take its place? Or should it be renamed (something like "Historical development of modern great powers" maybe)? Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studious Human (talk • contribs)

Requesting protection for this page

I notice that there are unregistered users with only IP addresses making significant edits and undoing the edits done be registered users. Please consider proving protection for this page, so that, at-least only registered users make edits on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajo767 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Austrian Empire before 1815

This article inexplicably fails to discuss the Austrian Hapsburg Empire, prior to 1815, and its hegemony in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation prior to 1648. This is simply unexplainable and should be corrected.

Why have Romania on the list

I wrote a detailed section almost one week ago on this article, adding Romania as one of the powers for the time span 1913 to 1916. It got deleted the first time, and - although after I added it a second time and it stayed up thus far - in the future someone may see this addition as unfitting, and we can't know if they'll read my admittedly rather long text, so over here in the Talk I shall provide a summarized version.

Major disclaimer: I am not inferring that Romania was a Great Power, that would be an absurd assertion. However, quite a handful of countries on this list were not definite/officially established Great Powers either. I am adding Romania here as a "considerable power", and strictly for the 1913 - 1916 period, for reasons I shall briefly re-iterate below.

Economic: Romania's 1913 GDP amounted to 11.7 billion. This is almost as much as the 12.6 billion of the entire Portuguese Empire, which sits in this list quite comfortably. Furthermore, Romania had global dominance in several branches: 5th greatest oil producer, 4th greatest wheat exporter, 3rd greatest corn exporter. GDP per capita was greater than that of two established Great Powers: Russia and Japan, as well as the aforementioned Portugal and also the Ottoman Empire.

Political: The end of the Balkan Wars cemented Romania's position as the dominant power in the region. As evidence of this, and as stated in the article, it was the only country which secured guarantees for its backed minorities, the Vlachs, from all three of its Balkan neighbors. Later, Romania managed to impose its candidate for the throne of Albania.

Military: The end of the Balkan Wars also cemented Romania's dominant position as the strongest among the Balkan States. Its army was rated by Erich Ludendorff as superior in quality to that of Austria-Hungary, an established Great Power. His exact words: "The Romanians are bad soldiers; the Austrians even worse.". Furthermore, in what was an overseas military deployment, Romania sent a battalion-worth of troops to back up the Romanian-sponsored Prince of Albania. Relative to Romania's geographical position, deploying troops to the Adriatic was an overseas military exploit. Finally, at the start of its WW1 campaign, Romania performed well against Austria-Hungary in Transylvania. It briefly occupied and subsequently destroyed one of this established Great Power's major sources of coal (see Petrozsény Campaign), and occupied a city with tens of thousands of people for over 5 weeks (see Battle of Brassó (1916)). I didn't write this in the article, but likely Romania was in this month - September 1916 - at the peak of its might relative to other countries. However, the Romanian occupation ended in October, and that same month it's safe to say that its status of "considerable power" ended, because it lost its main seaport on 23 October 1916.

And there you have it: Why Romania - for the August 1913 to October 1916 period - should be on this article. I hope I made my case well enough, I mean personally I do believe I did, and I hope my addition will stay here. I am open to discussions/questions on this thread if one so wishes. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Romania should not be here

I read the mentioned arguments for Romania deserving a position here but those fall flat when considering the context of the time period. Yes Romania may have had more GDP than the Portuguese Empire, but that was when it was in the 16th and 17th Centuries. GDP growth exists and 19th Century world GDP was far higher than 18th Century GDP. If flat value of GDP equates a considerable power, then by this definition Australia, Poland and Pakistan should be on this list. A similar argument can be made for GDP by per capita, which would imply Luxemburg being a Great Power, by having higher GDP per capita than Russia and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.22.236 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the GDP thing. Please actually read all that I wrote. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Romania? Insane... And sourced used are too weak to include anything here. I will be bold and remove the entire section. Pavlor (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

While I tend to largely agree - this whole thing was largely a wild experiment on my part - part of me still begs to differ

I believe there are way too many aspects to be ignored, if only for the brief period of 1916. Granted, one country is not a Great Power for mere days, so if duration is a factor, then I agree that Romania does not deserve a separate section. Nevertheless, I have some points worth discussing. And while I do have sources for each and single one of them, I must discuss them first, lest another major edit be undone. I believe the biggest argument for Romania coming close to briefly being a Great Power has to do with relations to other Great Powers. During the 1916 Battle of Transylvania, Romania occupied Austro-Hungarian territory - including cities and towns - for entire weeks. And Austria-Hungary was a Great Power. The construction "Romanian-occupied Great Power territory" is not an inaccurate one, and it was a reality for weeks. But even within this time span, 11 days stand out. Some may point out that Romania could invade a Great Power because another - Russia - was guarding its back. But initially this wasn't necessarily the case. Simply put, in the span from 27 August to 7 September 1916, Romania's armies were occupying and invading the territory of a Great Power while controlling troops from another. The Russian Corps sent into Romania was put at the disposal of the Romanian 3rd Army. And this was more than nominal, I read quite clearly how the Romanian 3rd Army commander was issuing orders and the Russian Corps commander was actually executing them. On 7 September, however, after some military blunders, a new mixed Russo-Romanian army was created, and put under the command of this Russian commander. So, only after 7 September the concept of Russia guarding Romania's back as the latter was invading AH became a reality, as an entire Romanian region was put under the command of a Russian general. But prior to this, for those 11 days, Romania was even more militarily sovereign than even France, for instance. France had whole British armies propping up its front. For those 11 days, Romania covered its fronts solely with its own armies, which were invading the land of a Great Power while effectively commanding the troops of another. Now, don't get me wrong, 11 days does not justify a section in this article, that much I realize. But I still believe a few lines in Austria-Hungary's section might be warranted. If not to explain this whole situation in detail, simply to point out that an extensive amount of Great Power territory (with cities and towns) was under Romanian control for a few weeks. In any case, I just wanted to discuss this. Maybe I'm in the wrong, and reading too much into it. Nevertheless, I am yet to find anything comparable: a small country occupying large swathes of Great Power territory for weeks, and - for a few days - at the same time having full control over troops from another Great Power. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, simply no. This is really a "creative" original research as there are no strong reliable sources supporting your point of view. Pavlor (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yours is a textbook non-answer as commonly given by status quo gatekeepers like you. I hate repeating myself, but I guess I must. I already stated that I have sources for everything. What exactly do you call point of view? That AH was a Great Power and Romania occupied its land for weeks? Literally happened. That Russia was a Great Power and Romania's armies controlled troops from its army for a few days? Again, literally happened. I already conceded not to create a separate section, but would you really be averse to a few lines mentioning the Romanian occupation of Transylvania in Austria-Hungary's section, if nothing else? Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Please, provide a reliable source calling Romania a great power with the above rationale and we may talk about your point, it is pure original research otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was a Great Power. Romania occupied its territory for a time. Why doesn't this suffice? Why do I have to specifically call Romania a Great Power instead of simply stating it controlled the territory of one, which is true? Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki 101 answer: WP:NOR. Hope that helps explain why you edit is unsuitable for this encyclopedia. Pavlor (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If controlling a territory of a great power accorded the right of being one, the Visigoths would be considerd to be an anctient superpower, due to their sack of Rome in 410 A.D. Deditus Particulo ^{Write to me} 21:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Point taken, thankyou for the perspective. Transylvania1916 (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)