New answers tagged

0

In order to attack China, "European" powers had to send armies "halfway" around the world. That is a difficult way to "project" power even today, let alone in the 19th or early 20th centuries. It's fairly easy to send a "punitive" expedition, but much harder to conquer and control a country under those circumstances even with a large technological advantage. ...


2

There were three main periods in the Ottoman Empire. The first was known for internal, but not external stability; the second was known for both external and internal stability; and the last was known for neither. The Ottoman Empire took its form after the capture of Constantinople in 1453, which it took at its capital. For the next two and a half centuries,...


0

According to "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe, Prohibition was pushed through in the U.S. by an unlikely "out" coalition of social reformers, agrarian interests, and women. (The 18th and 19th Amendments came close together.) They formed a "majority," but it was as "non-mainstream" a majority as one can get. Prohibition barely passed. Prior to ...


1

No, there is at best a weak correlation between national size and tendency for belligerence. Some examples of "small" states that started significant wars: Recent declaration of statehood by I.S.I.L. North Vietnam attacking the U.S. ally South Vietnam Italy (very definitely the junior partner of Germany and Italy) invading Greece in 1940. Nazi Germany ...


2

Yes weaker powers rarely attack their much stronger neighbors. A wise general never starts a war he can't win. But if there are many small states then they will fight each other a lot, think medieval Europe. There are a few cases where weak powers attack stronger foes. One is a rising or falling power A weak power is growing quickly in strength think ...


3

What Samuel Johnson, the king, and parliament all ignored was the fact that the 13 colonies, unlike later 19th century colonies or some 18th century colonies, were not part of, nor totally possessions of, the Kingdom of Great Britain. Instead they were conceived when created to be miniature Englands where the English settlers would govern themselves with ...


1

If you're comparing states with significant amounts of representative action (historially very few) vs those ruled by oligarchies or monarchies, the answer is clearly that prosperity is nearly guaranteed during and after the periods of higher representation. In comparison, oligarchies and monarchies almost always lead to long periods of stagnation. At best,...



Top 50 recent answers are included