Post 1700, What countries could become as wealthy/industrialized as Germany by the 21st century?

Generally,
Dude, I gave POD of 1700. This is ALTERNATE history. Brazil isn't even independent ,yet. A lot could change, like Portugal making it's administration better , so it could form a state or some other change, that changes Brazil for the better. I also said that the challenge could be met by the 21st century, so that's three hundred years in which Portugal/Brazil's path can change. Not even America rising to be the hyperpower is guaranteed. What more of an earlier POD would you think would be needed, Portugal/ Brazil being Germanic!!!! :p...:mad:

So why don't you propose an alternate economic policy for Brazil?
 
Exactly as it says on the tin. What countries have the resources and ,with an alternate history, the education/skills to become as wealthy and industrialized as Germany? Let the POD be 1700. Britain, France, and USA break offs don't count, but otherwise go wild.

Bonus points if you manage to get a country on Germany's level with an earlier POD, and by Germany's level, I mean by however industrialized and wealthy Germany was at that moment.

As a bonus, with the same rules, what countries could become as wealthy and industrialized as...
  1. Italy
  2. Britain
  3. France
By the 21st century?

Everyone is responding with Industrial examples, but what about an advanced economy based on trade and financial services? It wouldn't take much to knock a country like the Netherlands over the top. Given all the right breaks, I could see a wealthier Switzerland or Luxembourg. A modest very profitable manufacturing base (precision instruments, etc.), along with banking, insurance, commodity trading and cargo services (charter services, logistics, distribution via a developing European railway system and barge traffic, etc.) would do it.
 
Everyone is responding with Industrial examples, but what about an advanced economy based on trade and financial services? It wouldn't take much to knock a country like the Netherlands over the top. Given all the right breaks, I could see a wealthier Switzerland or Luxembourg. A modest very profitable manufacturing base (precision instruments, etc.), along with banking, insurance, commodity trading and cargo services (charter services, logistics, distribution via a developing European railway system and barge traffic, etc.) would do it.
Oman might be able to do such a thing as well acting as a middle man for east and west......

Wait a minute, The Ottomans could become stupidly rich with it's large population ans resource base as well as being central to a lot of trade (especially if they control the Suez). And with a post 1700 PoD you could easily reverse their fortunes.
 
What about Korea? They're roughly the same size and population as Germany, and it has a decent amount of coal and metal in the North. If they capture some land in Manchuria, they'd have even more raw material to aid in industrialization.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

I would disagree on the Iran point. I find the Safavids to be the ones with the proven credentials in terms of rule and sustainable success.

Do not easily forget that it was the Safavid which created the modern state of Iran and solidified it as opposed to being ruled by Turkish tribes such as the Aq Qoyunlyu or the Qara Qoyunlyu. Without the Safavid, Iran would not exist, it wove near the entirety of Iran together. Keeping the strong in my opinion has more merit than making the Afsharids, aka the dynasty of shirt unsustainable conquest the powerhouse of the world. For one, I count having Afghanistan to be a net negative. Iran and Iraq, parts of west Afghanistan, Khursan and western Baluchistan is all that's needed.
The problem I see with the Safavid dynasty is that by 1700 they were an increasingly brittle state, slowly decentralizing and losing much of their needed revenue as the Silk Road gave way to Indian Ocean maritime trade. And you have the issue of Shah's being isolated from their administrations and being massive spendthrifts. Furthermore, their military capacity in the last few years was bad; they were dependent on Europeans for artillery, the army was tiny and insufficiently paid, and the tribes were way too powerful.

I don't know how you'd be able to break this trend. It seems easier for me to just wipe the slate clean, have a military man destroy the pressing enemies of the state, expand her frontiers and while reforming the army along modern lines. From that end, next generations can serve as capable administrators to take full advantage of the first generation's conquests.
 
The problem I see with the Safavid dynasty is that by 1700 they were an increasingly brittle state, slowly decentralizing and losing much of their needed revenue as the Silk Road gave way to Indian Ocean maritime trade. And you have the issue of Shah's being isolated from their administrations and being massive spendthrifts. Furthermore, their military capacity in the last few years was bad; they were dependent on Europeans for artillery, the army was tiny and insufficiently paid, and the tribes were way too powerful.

I don't know how you'd be able to break this trend. It seems easier for me to just wipe the slate clean, have a military man destroy the pressing enemies of the state, expand her frontiers and while reforming the army along modern lines. From that end, next generations can serve as capable administrators to take full advantage of the first generation's conquests.

Decentralization is not always a bad thing. The Burji Mamluks were better rulers of Egypt through a very decentralized system of economics than the Ottomans. Typically when it comes to Islamic states, one that is liberal usually is better because if it isn't, then it is rigidly following the Shar'i' method which is not the most effective system.

The decadence is an issue for the Safavids. However, in my opinion it is easier to rectify this outcome than the Afsharid one. The Safavids despite the issues you brought, were extremely stable and effective in ruling Iranian people's, they also could claim legitimacy going far back into the 1400s giving it unparalleled Shi'i legitimacy.

Afsharids have a worse issue. The insatiable lust for conquest and the regions they ruled had progressively become wild and unkept. By this, I refer to the Afsharid dependence on Afghan warriors, warriors who lived in a land and culture which after successive wars and conquests was turned into a legitimate village to village anarchy, this created the chaos where Nader Shah was assassinated, a series of conspiring warlords in such a hostile and oddly close yet foreign land. Iran is much better off without such a feral place, leave the land to the unfortunate Durrani (I love the Durrani, but they were unfortunate) to barely hold together or any other myriad of possible Afghan hegemonies.
 
Exactly as it says on the tin. What countries have the resources and ,with an alternate history, the education/skills to become as wealthy and industrialized as Germany? Let the POD be 1700. Britain, France, and USA break offs don't count, but otherwise go wild.

Bonus points if you manage to get a country on Germany's level with an earlier POD, and by Germany's level, I mean by however industrialized and wealthy Germany was at that moment.

As a bonus, with the same rules, what countries could become as wealthy and industrialized as...
  1. Italy
  2. Britain
  3. France
By the 21st century?
Well.... The Morgenthau plan is carried out, and Germany's level of wealth and industrialization is matched by most countries in the world.
 
I think it depends...

In terms of Latin América, a good chunk of the continent can be industrialized, namely Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia too, if they can survive.

For East Asia, Korea and Vietnam are great candidates.
 
It might be becoming a bit meme/cliche at this point, but an independent Hungary with its original borders intact always has ATL powerhouse potential. Could have a decent shot.
 
Top