Discussion: How to make a new nation into a great power in a century or less.

Timaeus · May 3, 2016

So, I feel like I've made this type of thread before in my quest to think up a plausible timeline for the rise of the Philippines, and I know it would make more sense for me to look for actual references both online and in libraries, but...

I want to know what the factors are in building a nation and making it a great power. And I want to know what the most plausible areas for doing so are. I understand that land and population are important, but I forget the specifics. I can also remember that a certain temperament of a society is needed, but I'm also unsure about that, or what exactly that is (an enterprising middle class with liberal elements leading over conservative ones, but not so much that other powers see it as a threat a la Napoleon?).

So, in short, what are the most crucial factors in state-building in the 19th century, and what would help screw over a nation or bring it into power?

(Please feel free to post sources here.

)

Tanc49 · May 3, 2016

To sum it up I would say you need a stable nation that is left alone but not too much.
You need trade to share technology and culture.
You need to have ok neighbours. Big enough to stimulate your tech but not too big that they just destroy you.

You need a nation with a stable system of government centered on meritocracy. That way, everybody has a shot, which limitates any risk of civil war among the noble class.

You need a government willing to intervene in a limited way for big works and to maintain some equity/correct inequality and disasters (like famines).

That'd be my take on it

NHBL · May 3, 2016

USA on the loose

The USA could have become a great power in a hurry after the Civil War, had it needed to. It had all the land and resources it needed, a seasoned military, and a great population. In OTL, the USA became isolationist--but had there been enough of a threat to create a non-isolationist population, and the nation put a bit of its vast resources into building a frightening military, the USA would be a great power heading towards superpower status by 1883, 100 years after the Treaty of Paris.

Timaeus · May 3, 2016

Thanks for your responses guys.

Tanc49 said:
To sum it up I would say you need a stable nation that is left alone but not too much.
You need trade to share technology and culture.
You need to have ok neighbours. Big enough to stimulate your tech but not too big that they just destroy you.

You need a nation with a stable system of government centered on meritocracy. That way, everybody has a shot, which limitates any risk of civil war among the noble class.

You need a government willing to intervene in a limited way for big works and to maintain some equity/correct inequality and disasters (like famines).

That'd be my take on it

So I need an isolationist but not isolated nation, one with a meritocratic system and a relatively centralized government. And its neighbors need to be threatening enough to stir development but not enough that they can crush you outright.

Hm.

NHBL said:
The USA could have become a great power in a hurry after the Civil War, had it needed to. It had all the land and resources it needed, a seasoned military, and a great population. In OTL, the USA became isolationist--but had there been enough of a threat to create a non-isolationist population, and the nation put a bit of its vast resources into building a frightening military, the USA would be a great power heading towards superpower status by 1883, 100 years after the Treaty of Paris.

Hm. Would it have been possible to screw the USA during the 19th century? Specifically after the 1820s?

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

Timaeus said:
So I need an isolationist but not isolated nation, one with a meritocratic system and a relatively centralized government. And its neighbors need to be threatening enough to stir development but not enough that they can crush you outright.

I wouldn't say isolationist, that's a bit harsh. Japan, Vietnam and China were isolationist, that didn't help.

I would say protectionist, like France in the late XIXth century, Korea/Japan in the 70's, China in our days or the Brits during the XVIIIth century.

That means you still get the tech and culture but you don't get overwhelmed by it. A counter example is most African nations after decolonisation. Some went isolationist with a full on replacement model, which didn't work as they didn't have the skills or infrastructure. After a while the pendulum swung back and they went super open, allowing big, solid companies from elsewhere to come and control their economy completely.

Basically, most sub-saharan nations are a model of what not to do economically. And yes, I know people will say ethnic lines, civil war yadda yadda but people think way less about shooting each other when they have jobs and opportunities.

For the centralised part, yes. A counter example is Ethiopia. It had ties with the exterior and was powerful enough to resist colonisation during the scramble (the fact they were not too black and were christians certainly helped). It was not too isolated, and had threats it needed to defend itself against (the Mahdists, European encroachment...).
However, the government was still quite feodal and even though the Neguses (Negii?) were often pushing for modernisation, the State didn't have enough control on the whole country to push it efficiently.

Thinking on it, I would add a diversified economy. You look at Oman for example. They almost turned into a Great Power, they were tantalisingly close, with a good economy, solid-ish governance, a European style fleet and army and territories spanning from the Arabic Peninsula to Mozambique.
But their economy relied almost entirely on slave trading. When the British (against, a neighbour to big to ignore) decided they needed to push for total abolition, it destroyed the Omanese economy whose other legs weren't strong enough to stand on.

Timaeus · May 4, 2016

Tanc49 said:
I wouldn't say isolationist, that's a bit harsh. Japan, Vietnam and China were isolationist, that didn't help.

I would say protectionist, like France in the late XIXth century, Korea/Japan in the 70's, China in our days or the Brits during the XVIIIth century.

That means you still get the tech and culture but you don't get overwhelmed by it. A counter example is most African nations after decolonisation. Some went isolationist with a full on replacement model, which didn't work as they didn't have the skills or infrastructure. After a while the pendulum swung back and they went super open, allowing big, solid companies from elsewhere to come and control their economy completely.

Basically, most sub-saharan nations are a model of what not to do economically. And yes, I know people will say ethnic lines, civil war yadda yadda but people think way less about shooting each other when they have jobs and opportunities.

For the centralised part, yes. A counter example is Ethiopia. It had ties with the exterior and was powerful enough to resist colonisation during the scramble (the fact they were not too black and were christians certainly helped). It was not too isolated, and had threats it needed to defend itself against (the Mahdists, European encroachment...).
However, the government was still quite feodal and even though the Neguses (Negii?) were often pushing for modernisation, the State didn't have enough control on the whole country to push it efficiently.

Thinking on it, I would add a diversified economy. You look at Oman for example. They almost turned into a Great Power, they were tantalisingly close, with a good economy, solid-ish governance, a European style fleet and army and territories spanning from the Arabic Peninsula to Mozambique.
But their economy relied almost entirely on slave trading. When the British (against, a neighbour to big to ignore) decided they needed to push for total abolition, it destroyed the Omanese economy whose other legs weren't strong enough to stand on.

Yeah, protectionist seems like a better word for it.

Interesting.

So, I'm thinking of a newly independent early-to-mid 19th century Philippines, and I'm trying to assess its chances of becoming a great power in the midst of a far off region where the British and Dutch East Indies are the closest to threatening its sovereignty.

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

Timaeus said:
Yeah, protectionist seems like a better word for it.

Interesting.

So, I'm thinking of a newly independent early-to-mid 19th century Philippines, and I'm trying to assess its chances of becoming a great power in the midst of a far off region where the British and Dutch East Indies are the closest to threatening its sovereignty.

What's your PoD? The Dutch being integrated into France or something similar?

It's a slight obsession of mine but Vietnam would be a good candidate to be on track from the early XIXth century.

It has good ties with Europe and France in particular, it's well integrated into the trade network. It has a solid-ish state and government and a good technological base as well as a mix of plains, mountains and ports.

If they were to accept Christianity instead of spending their time trying to genocide the christians and instead focus their energy on modernisation, they would really be top dog in the region.

Anyway.

The Philippines would be a good candidate I guess. Especially if they just got independant, they might escape the big colonialist wave of the late XIXth century. Make sure they have a central army loyal to the state though.
This is important: loyal to the state, not to the ruler. If the State is more powerful than the ruler, it's a big plus for stability

NHBL · May 4, 2016

Resouorces

Any major power needs to have a lot of resources under its control. Britain, France, and Russia had plenty of resources for the time, as did Spain--great powers in their time. Later, the USA, the USSR, and China had the preponderance of resources, and became the major powers of their time.

That's not enough to make you a great power, but it seems to be a requirement.

Without significant resources, you aren't going anywhere far...

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

NHBL said:
Any major power needs to have a lot of resources under its control. Britain, France, and Russia had plenty of resources for the time, as did Spain--great powers in their time. Later, the USA, the USSR, and China had the preponderance of resources, and became the major powers of their time.

That's not enough to make you a great power, but it seems to be a requirement.

Without significant resources, you aren't going anywhere far...

Well yeah but resources can be acquired by force. Look at Oman or the Dutch for example

historyfool · May 4, 2016

NHBL said:
Any major power needs to have a lot of resources under its control. Britain, France, and Russia had plenty of resources for the time, as did Spain--great powers in their time. Later, the USA, the USSR, and China had the preponderance of resources, and became the major powers of their time.

That's not enough to make you a great power, but it seems to be a requirement.

Without significant resources, you aren't going anywhere far...

Not necessarily. For example the Republic of Venice, the Netherlands or Brandenburg-Prussia (couldn´t even produce enough decent iron for its own use until well into the 18th century) rose to a Great Power status without owning any usable resources, the Scandinavian states were not overly resource rich for the early modern age, but Sweden got to be a Great Power for a few generations and Denmark was at the brink to become one several times. For that matter modern Germany really had only one major resource (coal), but it became a Great Power with room for more without the mistakes of the 20th century.

What really is needed is a stable long-term policy fitting to the country which is adapted to changing circumstances.

France as navy focused as Britain would not have worked, nor a USA centralised to the same degree as France. Prussia almost was done when it failed to notice that its previously well-working system was outdated after the French Revolution.

trajen777 · May 4, 2016

I would say

1. Have some solid natural resources / this can be skilled labors/ low cost labor / raw materials etc
2. Have stable rule of law
3. Have minimal corruption ( i deal in business on a global basis and i see what corruption does )
4. Create tariff protected trade agreements (like USA did vs GB in 1800 / 1900 ) or China is doing against the USA
5. Dont let currency float (and currency manipulate) to increase exports
6. Stay out of wars for the build phase of your economy
7. Create a zone of control (ala USA on Madison Doc)
8. Become energy independent
9 Education Education
10 . Steal tech (Like China) see 60 minutes TV show on the central gov ;; (http://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...s/news-story/1f8bb00dde4597e8df55152b557ce000) to speed process of tech development.
11 . Create a strong central bank
12. Create a good savings economy
13. Build a strong Agra business so you dont have to import your food supply

trajen777 · May 4, 2016

For the Philapines i would suggest :
1. Massive JV with small specialist oil company dealing in deep water oil exploration. Send 50 of your best students to MIT and advanced degrees in the best Oil colleges (U of Houston ?)
2. Have 100 of your brightest focus software and systems development
3. Have 100 of your brightest work for oil rig platforms in the North Sea and Gulf of Mex
4. Exploit oil in the south china sea
5. Stop the corruption - and take the revenue from Oil for niche business , infrastructure, education
6. Redo the banking system to be similar to London, Panama, Swiz, Bermuda, Bahmas, Singapore
7. Keep tax rates low
8. Wipe out crime

DominusNovus · May 4, 2016

Protectionism only slows things down in the long-term. Its a fascinating intellectual exercise to imsgine how much faster the US economy would have grown if it had been totally free trade from the beginning.

Yanez de Gomera · May 4, 2016

If we look a bit farther in time, is protectionism/mercantilism/colbertism a good or a bad idea for a fledgling state during the XVII/XVIII centuries?

Tyr · May 4, 2016

Ask the Dutch.
You basically need to form the nation out of rich areas.

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

Tyr said:
Ask the Dutch.
You basically need to form the nation out of rich areas.

And relatively defensible. The ability to flood everything when bad guys come made it a real nice place for capital to rest and grow

Yanez de Gomera · May 4, 2016

Tanc49 said:
And relatively defensible. The ability to flood everything when bad guys come made it a real nice place for capital to rest and grow

Or be an island. Compare with the relative openess of the Po valley (unless a strong force control al the alpine passes) and in general Italy. Very rich during the later middle ages, but could not unify in time and as soon as Spain and france got wind of its military weakness, it became a battlefield for a century and more, wrecking its economy imho more than the discovery of Americas and the westward shift of trade routes.

Timaeus · May 5, 2016

Tanc49 said:
What's your PoD? The Dutch being integrated into France or something similar?

It's a slight obsession of mine but Vietnam would be a good candidate to be on track from the early XIXth century.

It has good ties with Europe and France in particular, it's well integrated into the trade network. It has a solid-ish state and government and a good technological base as well as a mix of plains, mountains and ports.

If they were to accept Christianity instead of spending their time trying to genocide the christians and instead focus their energy on modernisation, they would really be top dog in the region.

Anyway.

The Philippines would be a good candidate I guess. Especially if they just got independant, they might escape the big colonialist wave of the late XIXth century. Make sure they have a central army loyal to the state though.
This is important: loyal to the state, not to the ruler. If the State is more powerful than the ruler, it's a big plus for stability

My PoD's the 1820s, so yeah. Also, interesting...

NHBL said:
Any major power needs to have a lot of resources under its control. Britain, France, and Russia had plenty of resources for the time, as did Spain--great powers in their time. Later, the USA, the USSR, and China had the preponderance of resources, and became the major powers of their time.

That's not enough to make you a great power, but it seems to be a requirement.

Without significant resources, you aren't going anywhere far...

*looks at the Philippines* Well, all we really lack is oil, which we can probably take during the 19th century trade wars with the Dutchmen. So really, what I need to make the Philippines a viable great power is an army and fleet loyal to the fledgling republic, and some centralization and meritocracy. That seems doable. Thanks for the help, guys.

Tripwire · May 5, 2016

A country would need to be wealthy enough to support a bourgeoisie class, have very stable and deep state institutions, be connected to the main trade networks, and be at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. A high level of literacy and public education would probably also be necessary.