3 ms·

as technology improves and time pass seems obvious that mankind is richer and have better military than the past. You can probably say that nowadays Slovenia co

by genofon 13y ago

as technology improves and time pass seems obvious that mankind is richer and have better military than the past. You can probably say that nowadays Slovenia could win against 1600 Spanish empire, so the only comparison that is reasonable a relative comparison, that's why I didn't specify. I agree that it wasn't the main point of the post i was replying to but I found that point just smug and incorrect, backed-up with cultural bias rather than historical fact. EDIT: sorry, I wasn't clear enough, my comparison was mostly in the "most powerful" part rather than "richest"

vacri 13y ago
Of course it's relative. Power is about asserting your will, and inherent in that is having someone to assert it over. Saying that a modern country could beat a historical one in a war is silly. It is interesting to note that in the 60 years that the US has been the ascendent world power, they've withdrawn from all sizeable wars with objectives unmet. If you're using actual active warfare as the yardstick, then the US is not powerful at all on comparison to historical powers. If you're using sensible measurements of power, then of course the US is powerful, most of it from projection of force and cultural/soft power.