Talk:Historical powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical powers article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

Contents

[edit] Mayas

Shouldn't the Mayas be included as either an Ancient power or a early medieval power? I mean it certainly fulfills the definition given on the page of a historical power (This article deals with the world most powerful nations and empires before the Congress of Vienna. A Great Power/Nation/Empire is a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power over its region of the world). The Mayas were without a doubt the economic, political and military powerhouse of the region. CuffX 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Can we split the article into three main sections: such as Ancient Era, Medieval Era and Colonial Era or something like that? Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That might be a better split than the regional splits I thought of. Aussie King Pin 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I thought we could have both...something like:

==Ancient Powers== ===Europe=== ====Rome==== Stuff ====Egypt==== Stuff ===South Asia==== ==Medieval Powers== etc. etc.

Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean, can you explian. Aussie King Pin 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I meant three main sections: Ancient, Medieval and Colonial. Within each section the world is split into regions based on the extent of globalisation. Within those regions we have sections on each of the historical powers. No power should be added without a source. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that their will be enough nations for this to work be we can try it. Aussie King Pin 07:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

this article cannot be much more than a list, because if it aims at covering the history of 2500 BC to AD 1500, there are simply too many items (and it is woefully incomplete as of now). I suggest we treat Early Modern powers (1500 to 1800) over at Early Modern Age. Also, we shouldn't have a section per power, but just a section per period (Bronze Age, Iron Age, Antiquity, Middle Ages) with a brief paragraph each. The full list of Ancient Near Eastern powers, for example, should be at Ancient Near East (which is still a pityful stub itself). dab (ᛏ) 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I think this article can be more than a list it's just that this article will only be fully started once the Great Power page is sorted out and posified and the other editiors in this department can give their time. I know for myself that I will have the time once school finish in Early Demember so this won't see much action until then. Aussie King Pin 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria

Tell me, why is Bulgaria not a Historical Power in the Middle Ages and Britain is??? In what way britain, for instance exceeds Bulgaria during the Middle Ages????????? It may be much more famous but this definetely does NOT mean that it has greater achievements.

I will be pleased to receive your answer and then compare it with Bulgarian achievements. I want the artecle for Bulgaria to be restored.--Gligan 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Bulgaria a Historical Power

1) Bulgaria defeated the Arabs before Constantinople, Khan Tervel was called by contemporary western historians the "Saviour of Europe" => they stopped the Arab invasion in Eastern Europe, as the Franks did in Western Europe.

2) Bulgaria served as a shield of Europe against various Nomadic tribes from Central Asia; they were effectively stopped from migrating to the west by the strong Bulgarian Army.

3) Bulgaria was one of the only three empires in Europe which survived for more than just a few decades.

4) The second mostly used alphabet in the world, the Cyrillic was invented and developped in Bulgaria with huge amount of literature created.

5) Bulgaria was the first state in Europe to have an independent National Church.

These are only the most impertant of the achievements and successes of the Bulgarian Empire in the Middle Ages. --Gligan 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Gilgan, I will accpet those reason however you will needed to find sources for them otherwise you will find that other users like NobleEagle or Gerbrendal who religious stick to policies will delete for being unsorced--Aussie King Pin 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. :). Please provide a source and then I will believe that Bulgaria has a right to be mentioned here. Nobleeagle

[TALK] [C] 08:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things that I have noticed. One, since Bulgeria is joining the EU, Bulgerians are becoming more active in spreading their opinions. Two, if you search for information about Eastern Europe, you have Kieven Rus, and then Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, and it is very difficult to find anything about Bulgeria. Three, unless you get enough people with your view, you will not be able to post in wiki, because people like Eagle will remove anything that they have not previously heard. That means that countries that are currently powerful, have a much greater chance of being included because the current school system teaches about these countries. Four, in what way did Bulgeria influence others. For example, Poland is 1 of the earliest democracies, although the system was a failure because of liberal veto. France has colonies and french was the global language at one time. English is currently. Russia had a great sphere of influence at one point. It is so easy to find things on any country. But they all cant be powers.

Watch, off the top of my head, from west to east in europe. Spain - Discovers New World and spreads Spanish and Christianity, Portugal- Spread Spanish and christianity to the new world. England, The industrial revolution. France, Napolean nearly conquered entire Europe. Italy, birth place of renaissance. Swiss, geneva conventions. Low countries- centers for finance and colonies. Germany- Protastant christianity. Denmark- Controlled baltic sea trade. Poland- Largest European country. Now watch, the farther you are into eastern europe, the more time the country has been controlled by another nation. Southern Eastern Europe is controled for what, a thousand years atleast?


The fact that Bulgaria is not famous does not mean that that it does not deserve its place among the great countries in the world; it is not fair the english and the american media to control the opinion of the people. This is why some things of the current teaching system should be changed. I do not deny the achievements of Kievan Rus and Poland, if you wish, add them. I DO NOT like the EU so my activity has nothing to do with it; i want the EU to seize existing but as long as it exists Bulgaria should be in. Bulgaria influence others through its language and literature. For instance in 14th-15th centuries the higher clergy in the Russian principalities were Bulgarians who fled from the Ottomans and spread our highly developped literature in that time in the Russian lands. And even earlier, when Rus' was accepting christianity, the ordinary people accepted it from Bulgarian missionaires (the Royal court from the Byzantines). The serbs copied EVERYTHING from Bulgaria; the literatire language of non-Slavic Wallachia until late 18th and early 19th was Bulgarian. The Russians inherited the TSAR title of our Emperors. It its zenith our country WAS the largest in Europe (larger than every contemporary state in Europe excluding Russia), it encompassed greece north of Athens, European Turkey without Istanbul and parts of the Gallipoli, the whole of Bulgaria, Macedonia, serbia, romania, Albania, Moldova, parts of Bosnia, Hungary east of the Danube, southern Slovakia, Ukraine west of the Dneper. And lastly: why are you talking about colonies, industrial revolution, democracy or finance? In the Middle Ages there are not such terms and I regard BULGARIA as a Middle Age Power, and it was conquered in the end of the Middle Ages, so IT DESERVES ITS PLACE HERE; Poland-Lithuania did not exist in the Middle Ages, this example is inappropriate; please tell me with what the French achievements are greater that the Bulgarian in the Middle Ages. Bulgaria was not 1000 years under foreign domitation, but 648 years; and we deserve respect that we survived the Byzantine and the Turkish rules.
I want to know sth: Do you really do not believe that the 5 points above are true??? I can provide you literature in Bulgarian, but you will say why not british sourses; then I ask why don't you provide me Bulgarian sourses for the british history for example? I do not think that the english are smarter or more neutral than the Bulgarians (on the contrary), so the Bulgarian sourses should be trusted, especially if they are related to our own history. SO if you want to I shall add sourses and now I shall add Bulgaria again. --Gligan 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Encarta, in it's Bulgaria article mentions that "Bulgaria became the strongest nation of Eastern Europe during the reign of Boris' son Simeon." This is a good enough source from me, I just have to insert it into the article, so don't delete the Bulgaria section. --Aussie King Pin 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a problem Bulgeria being included because the whole historical power and great power articles are completely baised. However, there was no such thing as a nation during that time period. Also, it does not matter how powerful the country is, if it had no effect in history, it is meaningless. For example, the aztecs were powerful, but being so far excluded from the rest of the world, they are not exactly historical powers.

[edit] WRONG!

I'm afraid that Egypt was neither the first great power (militarily, economically or socially speaking) nor the first civilisation. Everyone acknowledges that the Sumerian and Akkadian states of Mesopotamia were the first civilisations, and such cities as Ur. Besides, the Egyptians did not become a military power until after the Hittite invasion. Somebody change this as its not correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.227.129.230 (talk • contribs)


Egypt was never a true military power. So the whole idea of egypt becoming a military power at any single point is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs)

[edit] List of Countries

This article has too many blank sections. We should either delete half of them, or better yet merge all the sections into a single lists. The ones that already have text should be used as examples. 24630 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I think that we should write around 6-10 lines for each country, pointing out its greatest achievements and successes. --Gligan 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List

Who deleted Byzantine Empire from the list of medieval powers? Or Genoa and Venice? Or the Capetian France? And the Normans in the Mediterranean Sea (Sicily, South Italy, Africa, Middle East)? And many others! It is a sign of great ingnorance in history!

I also still affirm that the article has a too British POV!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.57.120 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Article expansion

I know there're some kind of terms were you could say the Congress of Vienna is more historical than a random event at the end of World War II (fall of Berlin, the signing of a treaty, the dropping of a bomb), but why not use a more recent historical delimiter?

Also, the growing United American States, even during the Congress of Vienna, probably had a land area equal to or greater than others in this article, as well as an army and navy. And what do you think about including the Federal Republic of Central America, or the Inca Empire? Xaxafrad 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] so-called glorious britain

The British Empire the most "glorious" in history? This is an extremely bias POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.106.214 (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Article getting too big, time for a split?

I think the articles Historical powers in the ancient world, Historical powers in the medieval world, Historical powers in the modern world best reflect the current structure of this increasingly long article (and it's only going to get longer). Any thoughts about the moving/splitting procedure? (WP:SS for recommended splitting methods) Xaxafrad 02:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to come up with guidelines from what has to be included as they are far too many nations that are included on the list. You are right that this page will need to be split because if we get any detail on most of the nations this page will be too big to broswe. However, we first need to figure out which nations should even be on here. Aussie King Pin 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier, IMO. (adding link to originating article (so I can research further, at a later time)) Xaxafrad 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this thing is a big can of worms. So I take it we're co-opting a European term that was coined at the height of European colonialism, and NPOVing it? I don't feel the Great power article should include a long list of great powers, but perhaps just a short section on the greatest powers throughout the various ages, which will be getting their own in-depth articles shortly.
But then I think of other random readers coming across Great power and wanting to add or change their favorite power to the short list. Maybe, then, there should be no list at all, but just links to the full article. Xaxafrad 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

[edit] Definition of a Historical Power

Someone needs to clarify what a "Historical Powers" are. The term is extremely vague, and judging from this article, many civilizations could fit its criteria. 24630 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very vague and very difficult to provide sources for each and every power, I believe the article should move to something like List of historical great powers and then mention that it is an anachronism to call a power before 1815 a great power but this page nevertheless talks about powers that possessed such strength prior to 1815. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a "great power"

In the definitions of city-states, states, nations, and empires, one can spend a lot of time talking about the projection of power. In the transition between egalitarian hunting and gathering, to semi- and fully sendentary living, I think the greatest shift occurred when "power" over individuals changed from the elder of the extended family/tribe into the hands of an elite ruling over other families. This is all just definitions. I guess I'm only getting to the point where I ask what everybody else things the definitiary threshold is for the status of "great power". Rather than pure quantification, I think the threshold for inclusion should be the simple existence of a ruling political party (still a somewhat obscure term and accompanying definition). Or coming from the other direction, maybe outling some criteria for exclusion: archeological evidence alone does not make a state. Can literacy be used as a standard? I have a feeling there have been states and polities of marginal literacy, but I could be wrong (I hope I'm wrong).

Did that make any sense? Xaxafrad 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the "goal" of this article to differentiate between so-called organized, "civilized" societies and disorganized, "barbarian" societies? I'm sorry, I can't help but find the introductory sentence underwhelming. Xaxafrad 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the "Power in international relations" template be included on this article? I can't seem to be able to come to a decision on this one. Xaxafrad 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

i think this Article is evolving from the real historical powers to states that affected History, lots of powers are missing, and others should not be up their!!!

Missing


and why are the:

should not be there

i think this article has an Exaguration in the European History... it deletes several greater powers to include smaller states that where little to be called a power... i mean, for gods sake Republic of Venice was more like DHL today then a political, military, economic, social power... it just conquered a few islands and territories around the Adriatic Sea, on that scale we should make Bhutan a power!!!

as for [Kingdom of Castile]] and Kingdoms of Aragon , can someone please enlighten me!!! is it that much of sucess to defeat Arabs in Andalusia that it puts them as a HISTORICAL power...

and where is Napoleonic France??

i dont want to edit this article because im pretty sure people will delete my edits, i think this article should loos its Neutrelity --Arab League User 04:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe include Denmark in the viking age too? It fulfills the criteria mentioned in the article. Krastain (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Republic of Venice was not a territorial empire but was a thalassocracy, a great economic and maritime power in the Mediterranean sea between 1204 (Fourth Crusade, conquest of Constantinople and 1/4 of Byzatine Empire) and 1645 (War of Candia)--80.104.56.115 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.56.115 (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Empire

I'm sorry when i was adding about the Swedish empire i accidently took the picture away and stuff, maybe it's not so good to have the exact text about the Empire as in the Sweden text, but the other text before was also only copied from another article. Maybe some editing could be done so it differs a little bit from the other text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.64.45 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing "Superpower" references for anything prior to the USSR and USA

This has been discussed elsewhere and settled by RfC after extensive discussion (e.g. see the talk pages related to Sparta). The conclusion was not to use the word "superpower" in regards to *any* ancient empires. To spare you reading through that talk page, here's the gist of it: Ancient empires were not able to be a Superpower in that they were not able to project military force on a global scale. The superpower notion post-dates WWII and was a way to distinguish the new phenomenon of the USA and USSR (from 1945 onwards) in contrast to the previous period of the Great Power (from roughly 1815 to WWII). Similarly, "ruling over the known world" is a related misnomer. Ancient empires ruled over what they ruled over, and may or may not have been aware of other empires far away. E.g. the incense trade routes are as old as 2000 BC, so certainly the Persians were aware of the Indies, but had absolutely no manner to project power. The Roman Republic was also co-terminus with the Persian Empire, but neither (at the time) had the ability to project force to the other. Even when Rome was able to project force to Arabia, that still did not constitute a Superpower. --Psm 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify there were 3 not 2 super powers in world history "It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, the British Empire ceased to exist as its territories became independent, and the Soviet Union and the United States were regarded as the only two superpowers, then engaged in the Cold War." thats all -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Empire or the Islamic Conquest

Although Arabs did conquer as far as India, non of the land was centrally controlled, nor part of any Empires. The Arabs at that time did not seek to make an Empire, but seeked to spread Islam. They had no intention to control, or form a system for the conquered land. The definition of Empire sadly can't be applied to the Islamic conquest, since there was no central ruler for the conquered land, but rather a central ruler for Islam and the Islamic army. Anyway, this a great example of how wikipedia misinforms poor students and readers, and any historian would in outset render the tagging of the Islamic conquest as an Empire a joke or a serious mistake. Please remove the "Empire" and use an appropriate word. -- 78.86.159.199 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on empire with special attention as to the heterogenous nature of their organization. The Berber Revolt and the response to it shows clearly it was very much an empire

[edit] False claim for Portuguese being first Global "Empire"

Portugal's trading posts down the West coast of Africa, at the time of the beginning of settlement and territorial expansion by Spain in the West Indies in the 1490s, was NOT an empire - it was a fortified TRADE NETWORK. To be an "empire" means ruling over substantial territories and populations and having the military muscle to enforce that rule - Portugal's West African forts (pre 1498} fails this test for "global empire" status (nearby Ceuta isn't sufficient). Actual substantial territorial expansion (not of just a few neighbouring villages around the trade forts!) by Portugal into the African hinterland, let alone Brazil, India and the far east, came in the Sixteenth Century - after the Spanish had already commenced expansion in the Carribean at the end of the Fifteenth. As for the confusion between "empire" and "emporia", understand that the talk of trade or economic "empires" is merely the metaphorical use of the idea of "empire"