Which nation would be a global power if another country wasn't "holding it back"?

I mean..canada, maybe? we've got natural resources up the ass, a bunch of oil just lying around. Only issue is that it's cold, and murica's more attractive.
 
I mean..canada, maybe? we've got natural resources up the ass, a bunch of oil just lying around. Only issue is that it's cold, and murica's more attractive.

The US in 1860 had about the equivalent of Canada's population in slaves, so maybe a dystopia-level civil war which leads to a large immigration of blacks to Canada, along with transatlantic immigration shifting from the anarchistic US to the more stable Canada.
 
Mesopotamia could've been rich and powerful, and was exactly that for thousands of years until their location became their massive weak point. since then it was consistently held back by their proximity to persia, arabia, the levant and anatolia. were they not surrounded by numerically superior enemies, the area could've become the cradle of many more empires.
 
I'm not saying Mexico can't develop, but maybe the fact that the French could occupy the nation for several years, and that a bunch of hoodlums could walk off with Mexico suggests American influence in the economy was the result, not a cause, of Mexico's institutional problems.
The successfull french intervention was in 1862 , after The 1848 Mexican USA war and several decades of USA intervention interference and Filibusters against México.
The firsr French intervention, in 1839, was a Lot less extensive and With a better overall perfomance by México, so let me doubt that the French Could occupy México without The year if The USA weakening of the country
 
The US in 1860 had about the equivalent of Canada's population in slaves, so maybe a dystopia-level civil war which leads to a large immigration of blacks to Canada, along with transatlantic immigration shifting from the anarchistic US to the more stable Canada.

Realistically, I suspect TTL Canada would see an anti-immigrant backlash (especially against black immigration) and close its borders.
 
I mean..canada, maybe? we've got natural resources up the ass, a bunch of oil just lying around. Only issue is that it's cold, and murica's more attractive.

I think Canada's problem was not only the US next door but also the fact they knew they could rely on the British for a lot of their needs and defense. A "Canada" without that, maybe colonized by the Scandinavians instead in the 15th/early 16th as a "restored Vinland" or perhaps just the French as OTL, would have a different development and possibly be more amenable to massive projects trying to shift things away from the US border. And grabbing Alaska too of course. Basically a Canada which isn't just a big chunk of the British Empire for most of its history before becoming "America's hat". Maybe not as prosperous as OTL Canada (and a lot more polluted no doubt) but bigger and more self-sufficient and a much more important player internationally than just being "America's little brother."
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Mesopotamia could've been rich and powerful, and was exactly that for thousands of years until their location became their massive weak point. since then it was consistently held back by their proximity to persia, arabia, the levant and anatolia. were they not surrounded by numerically superior enemies, the area could've become the cradle of many more empires.

One may well argue that Assyria and Babylonia were this to each other, first and foremost. They kept up their cycle of each dominating the other and then being dominated by the other. This ultimately hurt both of them, leading to a situation wherein Persia could march in. (It's akin to the destructive wars between Persia and the ERE damaging both, which allowed the Islamic conquests to be so wildly successful.)

If either Babylonia or Assyria had gained absolute supremacy at an early point, or if a united state in the region had persisted without ever falling apart into two competing polities like those two, then the resulting united empire would probably have been much better off in the end. Potentially to the point of being able to withstand or absorb invading forces from the Persian highland... and permanently dominating the region up to the Med via vassalisation and economic hegemony.
 
One may well argue that Assyria and Babylonia were this to each other, first and foremost. They kept up their cycle of each dominating the other and then being dominated by the other. This ultimately hurt both of them, leading to a situation wherein Persia could march in. (It's akin to the destructive wars between Persia and the ERE damaging both, which allowed the Islamic conquests to be so wildly successful.)

If either Babylonia or Assyria had gained absolute supremacy at an early point, or if a united state in the region had persisted without ever falling apart into two competing polities like those two, then the resulting united empire would probably have been much better off in the end. Potentially to the point of being able to withstand or absorb invading forces from the Persian highland... and permanently dominating the region up to the Med via vassalisation and economic hegemony.

The tragedy of the central realms, fighting each other to the point that they are too exhausted to defend themselves from the expansion of a successful semi-peripheral realm (call it Persia, Rome, Prussia or America).
 

Vuu

Banned
The PLC was a massive empire but b y the time Russia became a noticeable international factor (end of the XVII) it was well on the way down the tubes. You need to go all the way to the Time of the Troubles, make Wladislaw Tsar of Moscow (which means that he has to convert into Orthodoxy) and then make him elected on the PLC's thrones (which means that he has to be a Catholic). Try to resolve this problem. ;)

Or (my personal favorite), have Vitold being victorious at Vorskla (which makes him de jure overlord of the Golden Horde and a direct overlord of the Great Princedom of Moscow), and then Lithuania being inherited by his grandson (Great Prince of Moscow) with the Greek Orthodoxy being a prevalent religion. This way you may end up if not with the Polish then with a great Lithuanian-Russian "empire".

...or have some sort of hussite wars on steroids that completely ruin the catholic church

not that i'm not planning to use that scenario for a little something something...
 
...or have some sort of hussite wars on steroids that completely ruin the catholic church

Will not help in the case of Tsardom's crown: the Protestants were almost as bad as the Catholics as far as the Russian Orthodox Church was involved and, anyway, Russian monarch could not be anything but an Orthodox. :teary:
 
Egypt and a few other modern Arab countries could have, at least on paper, risen to greater strength if there was no Israel to distract them and play them off against each other.
Another (rather obvious) example would be Poland without being partitioned between Prussia, Russia, and Austria.
 
Egypt and a few other modern Arab countries could have, at least on paper, risen to greater strength if there was no Israel to distract them and play them off against each other.
Another (rather obvious) example would be Poland without being partitioned between Prussia, Russia, and Austria.

Well not just israel, but also no Cold war, or too much british and french influence after the ottoman collapse.
 
I don't necessarily believe it would be global power, but I do think Taiwan could have a much more important role in SE Asia, if not for a certain very powerful neighbour.
 
To be fair, if not for said neighbor, Taiwan wouldn't even exist as a separate entity.
I know catastrophically little about Taiwan, but doesn't it also have an indigenous culture, older than the Han chinese colonization? So maybe they would be the ones controling Taiwan as its own nation
 
I know catastrophically little about Taiwan, but doesn't it also have an indigenous culture, older than the Han chinese colonization? So maybe they would be the ones controling Taiwan as its own nation
The vast majority of its population is of Han descent. Granted, most of that population came over during the Qing dynasty, with about 14% having come over after the Communist victory on the mainland, but the indigenous population makes up ~2.3% of Taiwan's modern population. There's also the fact that the KMT brought over a huge amount of capital and the business + intellectual elite with them on evacuating from the mainland, which had its impacts on Taiwan's economy, and the PRC and ROC have rather extensive economic ties now, helped by the shared language and history between the two entities.

Taiwan sans Chinese influence would be completely different from OTL's ROC.
 
Egypt and a few other modern Arab countries could have, at least on paper, risen to greater strength if there was no Israel to distract them and play them off against each other.

Not really, without israel the internal issues just become more obvious...


Another (rather obvious) example would be Poland without being partitioned between Prussia, Russia, and Austria.


Polands great power status was allready over when the partition did happen...

edit: clarification
 
Last edited:
Top