Unlimited poll: Most successful Early Modern state?

Most successful Early Modern state?

  • Spain

    Votes: 21 13.2%
  • France

    Votes: 39 24.5%
  • Netherlands

    Votes: 22 13.8%
  • England/Great Britain

    Votes: 101 63.5%
  • Habsburg Monarchy

    Votes: 15 9.4%
  • Prussia

    Votes: 20 12.6%
  • Ottoman Empire

    Votes: 24 15.1%
  • Muscovy/Russia

    Votes: 23 14.5%
  • Safavid Empire

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Mughal Empire

    Votes: 5 3.1%
  • Qing Empire

    Votes: 24 15.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 3.8%

  • Total voters
    159
Britain, went from a failed continent European land power to masters of the seven seas and world hegemon for a century.
 
If it's just 1500-1800, it's gotta be Qing. What started in the 1500s as one of several minor, squabbling Jurchen tribes to—through exploiting its neighbors' timely weaknesses, bribing and slandering all of its potential enemies, and generally outmaneuvering storied kingdoms and empires and would-be warlords—the largest Chinese dynasty in history and the wealthiest nation in the world in that particular time period . If the end date was extended even another 50 years, the most successful would definitely would be Britain (because the British would cement their domination of the subcontinent and eliminate the last of the independent India kingdoms in that time period) but, just from OP's 300 year time period, the Qing have to take the cake.

Otherwise, it's Britain, then Russia. Those three rapidly expanded more than all the others and did not weaken like the others did between 1500-1800.
 
San Marino.

Managed relative peace, established one of the oldest surviving constitutions in the world (if not the oldest), got the Pope to recognise their independence, and even got Napoleon to recognise their independence shortly before 1800, despite the Bonarparte going a-conquering in Italy at the time.
 
Last edited:
Choose Ottomans, Mughals, Netherlands and England.

I didn't put Prussia because their rise was quite late and concentrated around the 18th century mostly, same goes for the Qing and Russia.
 
Choose Ottomans, Mughals, Netherlands and England.

I didn't put Prussia because their rise was quite late and concentrated around the 18th century mostly, same goes for the Qing and Russia.
Eh, the Jianzhou Jurchens began their rapid rise in the late 16th century, proceeded to score victory after victory against the Ming dynasty in the early 17th century, then conquered Beijing (1644) and the rest of China (1683). The 18th century was more consolidation and border adjustments; the bulk of their rise was in the 17th century. As for Russia, they'd been pushing eastward for centuries and, while Peter the Great was the 18th century, they did push the Tatars and Poles back beforehand in the 16th and 17th centuries, allowing for Russia's entrance into the Great Powers club.
 
Eh, the Jianzhou Jurchens began their rapid rise in the late 16th century, proceeded to score victory after victory against the Ming dynasty in the early 17th century, then conquered Beijing (1644) and the rest of China (1683). The 18th century was more consolidation and border adjustments; the bulk of their rise was in the 17th century. As for Russia, they'd been pushing eastward for centuries and, while Peter the Great was the 18th century, they did push the Tatars and Poles back beforehand in the 16th and 17th centuries, allowing for Russia's entrance into the Great Powers club.
Their rise at that point was mostly conquering a famine-ridden Ming state and dealing with rebellions up to 1680s, the actual rise for me was the demographic recover during the 18th century and the complete end of any former Steppe states around Mongolia with the conquest of the Dzungar.

Same goes for Russia, up to 1700 they had no access to the Baltic and the Black sea, by 1800 they were among the top 5 in Europe, before then they weren't faring that well, Poland having even more problem doesn't make Russia more successful on that front. Russia in 1800 had more than double the population of Russia in 1700(guesstimate)
 
France and Netherlands first, England as a close second : the bureaucratisation and centralisation of political features took a certain time in France but also happened sufficiently early on to not be really held in check by civil war (with a limited Wars of Religion, the continuation of the "beautiful XVIth century" would certainly seen an even quicker evolution) : it really allowed France to remain a high-tier power in Europe in spite of its relatively more limited resources face to Habsurgs and its inner vulnerability.
Netherlands is a bit of a similar case, altough not politically so, giving we're talking of a resourcerful but geopolitically vulnerable ensemble that not only managed to fend off foreign pressure, but to even go on colonial ventures.
 
Choose Ottomans, Mughals, Netherlands and England.

I didn't put Prussia because their rise was quite late and concentrated around the 18th century mostly, same goes for the Qing and Russia.

England's dominance isn't really any earlier than Russia's or that of Qing. Even the population explosions happened in the same timeframe.

Early period: France, Ottomans. Later period, England, Russia, Netherlands.
 
England's dominance isn't really any earlier than Russia's or that of Qing. Even the population explosions happened in the same timeframe.

Early period: France, Ottomans. Later period, England, Russia, Netherlands.
England's urbanization and colonization started happening since the 17th century, London was already 4th largest city in Europe by 1600 and by 1700 it was not far from becoming first.
 
England's urbanization and colonization started happening since the 17th century, London was already 4th largest city in Europe by 1600 and by 1700 it was not far from becoming first.

Moscow was over 100K inhabitants in the 1500s. Russia settled all of the Volga, Urals and Siberia by mid-1600s. Russia had a permanent, uniformed army, permanent government ministries, and administered a territory not too far off from modern day's. 1500s England couldn't manage any of that. It's really not that different between the two of them in the time frame (England built more castles and had more printers, which I think is key). The 1700s is where the divergence really really starts.
 
Moscow was over 100K inhabitants in the 1500s. Russia settled all of the Volga, Urals and Siberia by mid-1600s. Russia had a permanent, uniformed army, permanent government ministries, and administered a territory not too far off from modern day's. 1500s England couldn't manage any of that. It's really not that different between the two of them in the time frame (England built more castles and had more printers, which I think is key). The 1700s is where the divergence really really starts.
The Volga was not settled by Russia until the 19th century, continuous Crimean raids stopped them from doing big steps, same goes with Siberia.

Moscow was barely top 10 among Europea cities, which is frankly underwhelming considering the demographic base of Russia.
 
The Volga was not settled by Russia until the 19th century, continuous Crimean raids stopped them from doing big steps, same goes with Siberia.

We must be working with vastly different definitions of "Volga" and "settled", and "big steps" too, because the various planned settlement lines were much bigger than anything England could hope to do in 1500s-1600s. Regardless, the main point remains unchallenged: England's success is a late thing. They were a late bloomer.
 
We must be working with vastly different definitions of "Volga" and "settled", and "big steps" too, because the various planned settlement lines were much bigger than anything England could hope to do in 1500s-1600s. Regardless, the main point remains unchallenged: England's success is a late thing. They were a late bloomer.
I already explained why they weren't, their growth and success started very fast since the mid 17th century, while Russia had to wait until the early 18th to finally start expanding demographically in the frontier. Like I said England urbanization and colonization were already well underway by 1700, London was beating Paris and good portions of the Dutch traders moved to London and England for their operations.

Also no the Volga was definitely not "settled" it was occupied, garrisoned and controlled but few people lived there, there is a reason why this was the region that experienced population doubling over decades a couple times in the 19th century, the area was underpopulated, a frontier.
 
The Volga was not settled by Russia until the 19th century,

That's simply not true: a major resettlement program had been conducted by Ivan IV after conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan. Not to mention that Upper Volga was "settled" in the early XIII century (Vladimir - Suzdal Pruincipality) with Principality of Nizhny Novgorod - Suzdal being formed in the XIV century. Enough to say that during the Time of Troubles, in 1602, Nizhy Novgorod (already one of the major trade centers in Tsardom) was capable of raising and financing (on a very lavish level) and army which expelled Poles from Moscow. Hardly expected from "underpopulated" area.

continuous Crimean raids stopped them from doing big steps,

What you are saying is that the Russian colonization of the Black Sea steppes did not start until 1770's. Not very critical due to the low population density (see below)

However, it was mostly accomplished before 1786. How does it scores comparing to the French loss of most of their colonial possessions a little bit earlier?

same goes with Siberia.

"same" as what? Who was raiding whom in Siberia circa XVIII century? If you are trying to say that intensive population of Siberia did not start until early XX, that's a completely different story related to the huge distances and difficulties of getting there by land prior to the major railroads construction: even during the age of the sails getting from St-Petersburg to the Russian Pacific coast by sea was few times faster than doing the same traveling by land. And, then, until the early XX there was no demographic (and social) pressure forcing to develop the new lands in Siberia: the main interest was in the mining (Ural, Altai, etc.).


Growth of population:
1500 - appr. 6M
1600 - appr. 13M
1700 - appr. 14M
1750 - 23M
1795 - 29M
1800 - 35M
1900 - 132.9M


Moscow was barely top 10 among Europea cities, which is frankly underwhelming considering the demographic base of Russia.

Well, Moscow was not Russian capital between early XVIII and 1917 and, as far as demographic base is involved, Russia got ahead of France only in the early XIX. Not sure to which time your "barely top 10" belongs.
 
"same" as what? Who was raiding whom in Siberia circa XVIII century?

Oirats and Kazakhs, presumably, but that wasn't the main barrier to population growth at all.

As for the Volga, Razin's rebellion raised from this supposedly "underpopulated frontier" an army of 20,000 soldiers in rebellion against the Tsar. I'm not sure what the expectation is here, basically, because that's a lot of people for a settler-peasant rebellion. Ottomans and Safavids had their hands full with these settlers even without the Tsar's army.

Incidentally, English population growth:

1500: 2.2 mln
1600: 4.1 mln
1700: 5.2 mln
1800: 7.7 mln
1900: 30.0 mln

Very similar to Russia's demographic growth curve and absolutely consistent with what you'd expect from a late-blooming peripheral country.
 
I already explained why they weren't, their growth and success started very fast since the mid 17th century, while Russia had to wait until the early 18th to finally start expanding demographically in the frontier. Like I said England urbanization and colonization were already well underway by 1700, London was beating Paris and good portions of the Dutch traders moved to London and England for their operations.

Also no the Volga was definitely not "settled" it was occupied, garrisoned and controlled but few people lived there, there is a reason why this was the region that experienced population doubling over decades a couple times in the 19th century, the area was underpopulated, a frontier.

To start from where it belongs, is "success" identified strictly as "urbanization" and "colonization"? If yes, then "urbanization" has to be counted as something average for all area including colonized regions and a single big capital city is hardly a measure of anything and, AFAIK, the British colonies in North America circa 1700's (and all the way till most of them had been lost) were not the most urbanized places on Earth.

Your ideas about Volga area are a little bit on a fanciful side: the indigenous population not going anywhere and the old cities like Kazan and Astrakhan still being there, a number of cities had been founded in the XVII century. Specifics of the Russian colonization was in a fast adoption of the native people without "blending" them completely with the Russians. Building numerous cities usually counts as "urbanization". Why was population in this area increasing fast in the XIX century? Because population of the whole Russia increased more than 3 times between 1800 (35.5M) and 1900 (132.9).

Now, as far as the "colonization" is involved, it started big scale in the mid-XVI, well before the meaningful English colonization effort and by 1700 reached the Pacific coast. Further colonization efforts had been on Caucasus (XVIII - XIX) and in the Central Asia when they were going in parallel with the British ones. Anyway, by 1800 Russian empire was an empire had the biggest contiguous territory

@LSCatilina offered measure of success based upon "the bureaucratisation and centralisation of political features". This is definitely an interesting factor if one adopts "statehood" point of view (like Richelieu, Louis XIV, Peter I, Catherine II, Napoleon, Nicholas I, Soloviev and numerous others rulers and historians) but in that area the Muscovite state with its early-developed absolutism was quite ...er... "successful": the process was pretty much over during the reign of Ivan the Terrible and the later developments had been following the pattern with various degrees of a "cannibalism". :cool:

But, to give credit where it is due, probably Phillip II was one of the fathers of the modern European "bureaucratisation and centralisation", even if not very successful one (but not due the lack of trying). However, he seemingly managed to create a whole generation of the administrators who were doing everything by the instruction without having any mental or (God forbid) critical processes to be involved. Well, we can write Spain off as an example of moving into the right direction too early and too energetically. :cool:
 
Oirats and Kazakhs, presumably, but that wasn't the main barrier to population growth at all.

As for the Volga, Razin's rebellion raised from this supposedly "underpopulated frontier" an army of 20,000 soldiers in rebellion against the Tsar. I'm not sure what the expectation is here, basically, because that's a lot of people for a settler-peasant rebellion. Ottomans and Safavids had their hands full with these settlers even without the Tsar's army.

Incidentally, English population growth:

1500: 2.2 mln
1600: 4.1 mln
1700: 5.2 mln
1800: 7.7 mln
1900: 30.0 mln

Very similar to Russia's demographic growth curve and absolutely consistent with what you'd expect from a late-blooming peripheral country.

Yes, and speaking about the areas to the East of Volga, during Pugachev's rebellion (1773 - 75), even Western Siberia already had a large population with enough serfs and serf-owners to make a "class warfare" (total extermination of the local nobility) into a major item of Pugachev's program.

Speaking of which, Wiki is precious:

1774: "The Russian general Michelson lost many men due to a lack of transportation and discipline among his troops, while Pugachev scored several important victories." Actually, in 1774 Michelson was only lieutenant colonel and, if anything, his participation in the events had been marked by a string of the uninterrupted victories, all the way to the final victory at the Black Yar/Solenikova Vataga. He became major general only in 1778. x'D
 
That's simply not true: a major resettlement program had been conducted by Ivan IV after conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan. Not to mention that Upper Volga was "settled" in the early XIII century (Vladimir - Suzdal Pruincipality) with Principality of Nizhny Novgorod - Suzdal being formed in the XIV century. Enough to say that during the Time of Troubles, in 1602, Nizhy Novgorod (already one of the major trade centers in Tsardom) was capable of raising and financing (on a very lavish level) and army which expelled Poles from Moscow. Hardly expected from "underpopulated" area.
Nizhny Novgorod wasn't on the frontier with Crimea, the former Tartar territories were. Also this major resettlement program didn't make the area that populated, especially Astrakhan.

What you are saying is that the Russian colonization of the Black Sea steppes did not start until 1770's. Not very critical due to the low population density (see below)
Well if you use the word "settlement" and "colonization" to mean 2 completely different things, that's on you, I'm not here to argue semantics though.

However, it was mostly accomplished before 1786. How does it scores comparing to the French loss of most of their colonial possessions a little bit earlier?
Why are you bringing the French in this? My point is just that the bulk of the "success" of Russia during this era happened fairly late even compared to England.

"same" as what? Who was raiding whom in Siberia circa XVIII century?
Siberia was thinly populated, that's my point. Also the Kazakh Horde was a thorn on the side during this period.

If you are trying to say that intensive population of Siberia did not start until early XX, that's a completely different story related to the huge distances and difficulties of getting there by land prior to the major railroads construction: even during the age of the sails getting from St-Petersburg to the Russian Pacific coast by sea was few times faster than doing the same traveling by land. And, then, until the early XX there was no demographic (and social) pressure forcing to develop the new lands in Siberia: the main interest was in the mining (Ural, Altai, etc.).
I'm not sure how that counters my point, it doesn't change the fact that taking over all this Siberian land wasn't some sort of big success relatively speaking.

Well, Moscow was not Russian capital between early XVIII and 1917 and, as far as demographic base is involved, Russia got ahead of France only in the early XIX. Not sure to which time your "barely top 10" belongs.
Moscow was barely in the top 10 city in 1700 and didn't grow significantly until the late 18th century and St.Petersburg became significant also after the mid 18th century.

Russia still had 2 to 3 times the population of England and yet its main city was many times smaller throughout this period.


To start from where it belongs, is "success" identified strictly as "urbanization" and "colonization"? If yes, then "urbanization" has to be counted as something average for all area including colonized regions and a single big capital city is hardly a measure of anything and, AFAIK, the British colonies in North America circa 1700's (and all the way till most of them had been lost) were not the most urbanized places on Earth.
The British colonies in America up to 1750 didn't have enough population to skew things significantly, London had the same population as the Thirteen colonies up to 1720-1740 or so.

Also I didn't say success was strictly defined by those 2 things, but they are 2 relatively easy to compare metrics.

Your ideas about Volga area are a little bit on a fanciful side: the indigenous population not going anywhere and the old cities like Kazan and Astrakhan still being there,
What I know is that Astrakhan was fairly depopulated, as were most territories bordering the Crimean Khanate, the Russian had to slowly push the frontier south by building lines of fortification, this lasted centuries since the fall of Astrakhan and the population of those areas wasn't that big up to the start of the Circassian war.


a number of cities had been founded in the XVII century. Specifics of the Russian colonization was in a fast adoption of the native people without "blending" them completely with the Russians. Building numerous cities usually counts as "urbanization". Why was population in this area increasing fast in the XIX century? Because population of the whole Russia increased more than 3 times between 1800 (35.5M) and 1900 (132.9).
The northern half of Rusisa didn't grew as much as the South did, the population there double to quadrupled in the first half of the 19th century alone.

Now, as far as the "colonization" is involved, it started big scale in the mid-XVI, well before the meaningful English colonization effort and by 1700 reached the Pacific coast. Further colonization efforts had been on Caucasus (XVIII - XIX) and in the Central Asia when they were going in parallel with the British ones. Anyway, by 1800 Russian empire was an empire had the biggest contiguous territory
Physical size shouldn't matter to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Their rise at that point was mostly conquering a famine-ridden Ming state and dealing with rebellions up to 1680s, the actual rise for me was the demographic recover during the 18th century and the complete end of any former Steppe states around Mongolia with the conquest of the Dzungar.

Same goes for Russia, up to 1700 they had no access to the Baltic and the Black sea, by 1800 they were among the top 5 in Europe, before then they weren't faring that well, Poland having even more problem doesn't make Russia more successful on that front. Russia in 1800 had more than double the population of Russia in 1700(guesstimate)
I'll not retread over Russia but, regarding the Qing, it wasn't as simple as just rolling over the Ming. In the 1500s, the Jurchen were divided tribes without a written language dominated by the Mongols and Ming for the past few centuries (all they could do was launch raids). Then Nurhaci united the tribes, made an alphabet for the Jurchen, and scored victory after victory against the other Jurchens, Mongols, and even the Ming. The Ming situation wasn't so incredibly dire in the 1610s and 1620s when Nurhaci seized the Liaodong peninsula (though it did decline rapidly into the 1630s).

The famines and plagues certainly helped the Qing but it took constant prodding on the part of the Manchu to exacerbate the Ming's economic system (raid, force increased military spending, force higher taxes, reduce disaster relief effectiveness and cause revolts, increase military spending, in a positive feedback loop) and help foment the rebellions that would topple the dynasty. Eliminating the Mongols and Koreans as peripherals threats and forcing them into tributary status too, that was well-calculated and, even without the straight conquest of the Ming, would've made them one of East Asia's foremost powers (even if the Koreans were terribly weakened by the Japanese half a century earlier). Plus the court intrigue they participated in to incite defections and kill off any resistance (Yuan Chonghuan) made it much more of a diplomatic and intrigue based conquest than a straight military conquest. And all in the course of less than a century. Going from just one of many bickering tribes to the point of being able to conquer the Ming (weakened as they were) is one helluva rise, in my opinion, at least. That was what I had in mind picking them.
 
Top