What does it take to be a Great Power?

[PaleoT]

What qualities does a nation need to have great power status, which I will define as:

"1. A nation that has exceptional military and economic strength, and consequently plays a major, often decisive, role in international affairs."
​

-dictionary.com

Meaning, what qualities must a nation have to have the possibility to become a great power; would they need a large population? Lots of Natural Resources? What cultural traits incline one's nation to be considered a great power?

I will give a list of what countries I have considered at various times to be a Great Power(Post 1450 AD)

Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
France
United Kingdom
China
Russia
The Ottomans
Germany
The United States
Italy
Austria-Hungary
Japan

 

[Evil Crusader]

Sweden certainly was there, for a period, and with some luck it could have kept its Great Power status long enough to eventually become a stabler member of the clan. Brazil and India also have the potential to eventually get there.

Regardless, a nation needs to have the correct assets (geopolitical situation, economical/social strength, technology level) for any given period to get there. Sometimes a good position or navy will suffice (ask the Netherlands), other times you need a huge population and relatively uncontested borders to be there (think Russia).
For example, as I am Italian, I'll give you the example closest to me. Was the Savoyard Kingdom of Italy a Great Power? Yeah, kind of, somewhat. Why? Because it wasn't suited to be a XIX/XX cent. Great Power, with all the economic strain and reliance on natural resources that entailed. One could say that, in some ways, the way smaller Republic in Venice during the XII cent. was far greater; it held comparatively bigger influence and commanded far more wealth during its golden age.
So, your mileage can and will vary.

 

[PaleoT]

Sweden certainly was there, for a period, and with some luck it could have kept its Great Power status long enough to eventually become a stabler member of the clan. Brazil and India also have the potential to eventually get there.

Regardless, a nation needs to have the correct assets (geopolitical situation, economical/social strength, technology level) for any given period to get there. Sometimes a good position or navy will suffice (ask the Netherlands), other times you need a huge population and relatively uncontested borders to be there (think Russia).
For example, as I am Italian, I'll give you the example closest to me. Was the Savoyard Kingdom of Italy a Great Power? Yeah, kind of, somewhat. Why? Because it wasn't suited to be a XIX/XX cent. Great Power, with all the economic strain and reliance on natural resources that entailed. One could say that, in some ways, the way smaller Republic in Venice during the XII cent. was far greater; it held comparatively bigger influence and commanded far more wealth during its golden age.
So, your mileage can and will vary.

I like the response; but the reason I did not include Sweden(Or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) is that they did not have a massive impact on international politics; while they each had their Golden ages, they were largely limited to Europe for influence. I was also very hesitant to put Italy up on the list, but I eventually conceded.

But the reasoning I have for putting the time limit at 1450 was that while yes, Savoy and Venice may have been proportionally powerful compared to its neighbors at a similar rate a Great Power would its neighbors, it does not effect the International Community directly.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I think you are using a concept of 'international' that only really applies to post-1800 - very few nations managed to be very relevant outside their continent. By that logic, the Netherlands aren't that better; they didn't influence international politics too much, in fact one can say their main influence was on a regional theater, if a distant one (SE Asia); a similar problem works for the Ottomans, whose influence sharply declined as one gets away from their borders. Portugal fared even worse, overall. And still (though arguable with Portugal), those feel like truer Great Powers than Italy to me because their overall influence, if limited in some ways, was overall higher.

I'll give it to you though that Sweden and Poland-Lithuania both were good candidates for graduating which never made the jump though; another name that can go up is Brazil, with good PODs.

 

[PaleoT]

I think you are using a concept of 'international' that only really applies to post-1800 - very few nations managed to be very relevant outside their continent. By that logic, the Netherlands aren't that better; they didn't influence international politics too much, in fact one can say their main influence was on a regional theater, if a distant one (SE Asia); a similar problem works for the Ottomans, whose influence sharply declined as one gets away from their borders. Portugal fared even worse, overall. And still (though arguable with Portugal), those feel like truer Great Powers than Italy to me because their overall influence, if limited in some ways, was overall higher.

I'll give it to you though that Sweden and Poland-Lithuania both were good candidates for graduating which never made the jump though; another name that can go up is Brazil, with good PODs.

The Netherlands effected the globe; I'll give you a short list:
Wars of Religion(Europe)

Colonization of North America; Culminated in the Anglo-Dutch Wars with England. Ended in New Amsterdam being sceded to the British(NA)

Monetary and Logistical support of the Americans during their revolution(NA again)

Settlement of South Africa(Africa)

Colonization of Ceylon(India)

Colonization of Indonesia(SE Asia)

Colonization of Suriname(South America)

Discovery of Australia by Dutch Explorer Tasman(Australia)

Only trading partner of the Japanese during the Edo period, providing a pivotal outside influence in a time of Isolation(Asia)

Sino-Dutch Conflicts(Also china)

The Netherlands has irreversibly impacted the international stage, directly. It also was powerful enough to compete and beat other Great Powers.

That much is true of the Ottomans, but I think you have to consider its important Participation in WW1.

For Portugal, it also effected the whole world during its golden age; as for Italy I mainly added it once again, for its importance in the World Wars, Colonial Empire and in the creation and promotion of Fascism(Which while terrible, effected the world incredibly).

 

[Avrorrange]

The Mughal Empire was definitely a great power.

 

[PaleoT]

The Mughal Empire was definitely a great power.

You think? How so.

I never considered the prospect.

 

[Avrorrange]

You think? How so.

I never considered the prospect.

It's a major power in one of the most densely populated continents of the world.In terms of raw strength at it's height,it's definitely more powerful than some of the so-called great powers of the list,like the Netherlands and Portugal.

 

[Dominic]

It's a very relative term, depending on the strategic system in question and how broad the definition is supposed to be. A functional definition would be that a Great Power is a country powerful enough that their voice cannot be ignored in a given strategic system. So while they may not have the capacity to get what they want, no other state could take an action that ignored the power of that one state. So for example, in the classic Great Power system of Europe in 1914 it is clear that a state like Austria-Hungary was no where near the strongest, but the other Great Powers, Russia and Germany in particular, were unable to act without taking into concern what AH would do. On the other hand, Serbia was clearly not such a state and was regularly sold down the river by its Russian ally until Russia decided that that was no longer in its interests.

This definition is muddied in the modern world however by the fact that we have one state that is effectively a 'global great power' i.e. superpower, the US, and several states who's voices are regionally equally or near enough in importance to the American voice but which are not so important in other places. Strategic choices in Asia for example are equally impossible to make ignoring either China or the US, or Japan for that matter, as all these states qualify as too big to ignore. This ignores though the major differences in power between all three states. I still use this definition though as any other I have seen inevitably falls down into useless comparisons between specific capabilities and a vain search for the great power threshold. There is no material "great power state", but rather it is an emergent phenomenon from a variety of interacting strategic spheres.

 

[PaleoT]

It's a major power in one of the most densely populated continents of the world.In raw strength at it's height,it's definitely more powerful than some of the so-called great powers of the list,like the Netherlands and Portugal,

That is neglecting the fact that the Mughals didn't have the Mughals did not have a decisive effect in World Affairs; its technology, particuarly naval technology, was not great enough in scale to project its power globally. It does not meet the definition of a Great Power, as it is limited to its region.

 

[Thespitron 6000]

It takes nerves of steel, the strength of a bull, the courage of a lion, and the balls of a tiger.

 

[Avrorrange]

That is neglecting the fact that the Mughals didn't have the Mughals did not have a decisive effect in World Affairs; its technology, particuarly naval technology, was not great enough in scale to project its power globally. It does not meet the definition of a Great Power, as it is limited to its region.

A great power is an entity that commands vast strength,not necessarily because it's involved in a lot of places.Frankly,what makes Afghanistan and the Indian Sub-continent which the Mughals are often involved in less relevant than places like South Africa,Indonesia,Americas and Europe?Sorry,but it seems to me that you may be clouded by Western-centric views.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Nations that I would consider great powers in a certain sense for their time period would be as follows, in a strict sense of power projection resembling nations of the 17,18 and 1900s

Achaemenid Empire
Seleucid Empire
Mauryan Empire
Roman Relublic/Empire
Han Dynasty
Byzantium
Western Roman Empire
Sassanid Empire
Tang Dynasty
Umayyad Caliphate (including Rashidun)
Abbasid Caliphate
Holy Roman Empire
Fatimid Caliphate
Saljuq Empire
Yuan Dynasty/Mongol Empire
Ottoman Empire
Timurid Empire
France
Ming Dynasty
Spanish Empire
Portuguese Empire
Mughal Empire
Russian Empire
England/Britain
Qing Dynasty
Etc, etc, etc

Some of these you could argue are not up to the level such as the Saljuq, Fatimid, Holy Roman Empire, Seleucids and Sassanids and I wouldn't disagree overall.

EDIT: I do feel this is a good list to begin districting which would be a 'great power' or not. At least a start, especially with less focus on Europe for a short time.

 

[Dominic]

EDIT: I do feel this is a good list to begin districting which would be a 'great power' or not. At least a start, especially with less focus on Europe for a short time.

Good thing is that Europe barely has any great powers left today, and honestly France and Britain probably won't qualify for more than another decade or two. It's the Indo-Pacific century!

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Good thing is that Europe barely has any great powers left today, and honestly France and Britain probably won't qualify for more than another decade or two. It's the Indo-Pacific century!

Well I would say that France was a great power in 1720 at least onward. It ruled Québec to La Nouvelle Orléans to Hispaniola to African territories and European holdings. Previously to that it was one of the most populous nations on earth.

England was a great power at least after or right before the 7 years war where it gained Canada and the Mid West and held a massive colony in America. It then expanded after losing America to loosely control India, parts of Africa, South Africa, Malacca, Australia, etc...

 

[Anaxagoras]

Stable financial institutions and a culture that respects the rule of law. With those, even a worthless piece of rock like Hong Kong can become a great power.

 

[Dominic]

Well I would say that France was a great power in 1720 at least onward. It ruled Québec to La Nouvelle Orléans to Hispaniola to African territories and European holdings. Previously to that it was one of the most populous nations on earth.

England was a great power at least after or right before the 7 years war where it gained Canada and the Mid West and held a massive colony in America. It then expanded after losing America to loosely control India, parts of Africa, South Africa, Malacca, Australia, etc...

For sure, I was referring to the future.

 

[Thesaurus Rex]

Nations that I would consider great powers in a certain sense for their time period would be as follows, in a strict sense of power projection resembling nations of the 17,18 and 1900s

Achaemenid Empire
Seleucid Empire
Mauryan Empire
Roman Relublic/Empire
Han Dynasty
Byzantium
Western Roman Empire
Sassanid Empire
Tang Dynasty
Umayyad Caliphate (including Rashidun)
Abbasid Caliphate
Holy Roman Empire
Fatimid Caliphate
Saljuq Empire
Yuan Dynasty/Mongol Empire
Ottoman Empire
Timurid Empire
France
Ming Dynasty
Spanish Empire
Portuguese Empire
Mughal Empire
Russian Empire
England/Britain
Qing Dynasty
Etc, etc, etc

Some of these you could argue are not up to the level such as the Saljuq, Fatimid, Holy Roman Empire, Seleucids and Sassanids and I wouldn't disagree overall.

EDIT: I do feel this is a good list to begin districting which would be a 'great power' or not. At least a start, especially with less focus on Europe for a short time.

Would you consider the Mali Empire to be a great power? IIRC they were the richest country in the world at the time and definitely influenced lands across continents, not just in culture but economically from the sheer amount of wealth going across the Sahara. Gold from Mali made its way up into Europe and comprised much of the gold in minted European currency.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Would you consider the Mali Empire to be a great power? IIRC they were the richest country in the world at the time and definitely influenced lands across continents, not just in culture but economically from the sheer amount of wealth going across the Sahara. Gold from Mali made its way up into Europe and comprised much of the gold in minted European currency.

While I really do see your point, I would not place then so high. While their economy and resources do comprise serious advantages, their political power was very localized and if an opposing force decided to undercut their economy and trade, they would be unable to do anything unless the enemy was in the Sahel. Nations like the Saljuq which I barely added, could exert political power from Greece to India and held some the most lucrative overland trade route in the world at the time. In comparison Mali only offers its vast gold resources and then an overall relatively backward military and ruling system. If we are to add Mali as a great power, then we also be forced to add states like Benin that fueled the Atlantic slave trade or Malacca with its trade routes or even Venice supplying the west with goods from the east.

 

[Riain]

Paul Kennedy said that the mark of a great power was the willingness to go head to head with other great powers. That might not give you a definite start but sorts out the wheat from the chaff.