Respond to one (1) of the following questions. Make sure you remember to respond to AT LEAST two (2) of your peers's responses as well!
(1) How did Great Britain as the "victor" at the Congress of Vienna in 1815? What factors led to its dominance in the nineteenth century? Should we consider Great Britain to be the world's first "superpower?" Was there are risk of strategic overstretch for Great Britain? Explain why or why not.
(2) According to P. Kennedy, the Congress of Vienna created an "international system" (pg. 143) among the "Great Powers" after 1815. But, as we discussed, Napoleon was trying to create an international empire during his rule. How is the Balance of Power different or similar to Napoleon's Empire? Consider economics, politics, war, and international relations.
(2). Napoleon's international empire was a result of his expansions and invasions. He put their relatives in authorities of conquered countries, which creates benefited and united empire for France. Balance of Power, or we call as an international system, was totally different from his idea. After Napoleon had fallen, the Congress of Vienna restored the nations as the situation before the war happened. Although countries opened their trade and sold and bought each other, they also became rivals and competed. Countries wanted do develop their economics, military and wealth than others, which caused the Industrial Revolution.
ReplyDeleteI agree Jeong, that the international system was in fact different from Napoleon's international empire. The empire was based on war, and the conquering of territories. This new arising concept of an "international system" was based on quite the opposite. It was based on free trade, international harmony, and international order. One thing I will disagree with you on is that I do not believe that European countries became rivals due to the new trade agreements and economy. Yes, there will always be tension among the many great European powers, but at this time of the "international system" all political parties opted for possible peace and stability. Nobody wanted a repeat of the many struggles caused between 1793-1815. This is why I believe that at this time there was peace and the European powers had a mutual understanding for eachother.
DeleteI support Jeong's argument about the rivalry that the countries had between the countries. Expanding one's boundaries is a way to increase revenue, take in more rich goods and selling them, and having trading advantages. There was, of course, going to be competition one way or another because in the end everyone wanted to be at the top. It is inevitable to create conflicts about trading internationally, but I agree with Ben about how the countries would look at the past and prevent from having the same exact conflicts. On the other hand, there would be different kind of conflicts, which wouldn't be as large as the ones in the past.
DeleteI agree with what Ben has said, but I also think that there was a lot of tension between European powers over trade. It was not necessarily violent rivalries, but I still think that countries such as England and France were constantly competing, even if neither power said so outright. If they weren't competing, like what Jeong said, the Industrial Revolution would not have occurred. Although the international system did create relative peace with very few conflicts between countries, there was still a sense of rivalry among many powers that couldn't be broken just by the Congress of Vienna. While there wasn't conflicts that led to violence, there was definitely major competition between European powers through trade and land-ownership.
Delete1.) Great Britain soared into the Nineteenth century with no wars, an economic lead on all the other European countries, maritime dominance, and the most extensive colonial empire in all of Europe. Britain gained money from military expansion and plunder in India, and using its colonies to re-export British goods and bring in commodities from all around the world. I believe that Britain should be considered the world'd first superpower, because they have more money than all of it's competition, and although there may be a balance of power on land, there was no match for Britain's fleet and their naval power. Also, Britain had a huge colonial empire in India, North America, the West Indies, and Latin America. But, there was a chance and danger of strategic overstretch for Britain. They had a sizable military force in India, for facilitating their colonies. And they didn't have a huge army to begin with, only the navy. If more troops were needed in one of the colonies and then there was a war or another reason for a need of troops, then Britain was too spread out to be able to be able to hold everything they owned. They couldn't hold on to all their colonies because of the distance between them and the size of their infantry forces. Britain was the world's first superpower but lost all of its holdings in its colonies and was not able to stay the only superpower in the world.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same exact thing about strategic overstretch. Its been seen through history, such as the Roman Empire, that strategic overstretch can weaken a "superpower" country. To go along with what you said, although they did have a powerful and wealthy navy power, it was not enough resources to cover every land they owned. I believe that Britain was only thinking about their huge trading success they had, which was large amount of money they were making, that they didn't even consider about the consequences of strategic overstretch.
DeleteI believe that they realized that strategic overstreach was an issue, but their large ego caused them to mostly disregard this danger and push forward with their plans. In their defense, they did have the largest naval force in the world, as well as an extremely sophisticated economic system, which, in their hubris, may have led them to believe that they were invulnerable.
Delete(1) In my opinion, it is clear that Great Britain made some monumental strides in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. There was a steady growth in the economy and Britain made large-scale improvements in transportation and communications. Very different now from the Great Power conflict, Britain was promoting free trade ideals, international harmony, and the forfeiting of mercantilist devices.Britain also began growing as a military force and found themselves industrializing, which was beneficial. I do believe that we should consider Britain to be a "superpower" but whether it was the first or not can be debated. Britain was expanding in Australia, India, North America and even more places. This could definitely be considered strategic overstretch in my opinion because they are spreading few and far between. However, Britain's naval powers were strong and no one seemed to be openly testing them, which helped keep them strategically safe despite their vast and growing expansion. So yes, they were at risk, and in the end were not able to hold onto their title because they were so spread out and they were not able to keep all their colonies safely under their control. In the end, it was not easy for Britain to achieve the title of being the worlds first "superpower", but they did earn it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. Britain had too many colonies to keep under their control and didn't have a large enough army on land to keep everything under their control. Ships and naval power are great for trade and a naval dominance but ships cant calm riots or revolutions when foot soldiers are needed. Strategic overstretch was their biggest enemy.
DeleteI am going to disagree with both of you just to be difficult. You both mention that Great Britain was successful in expanding their land in both North America and in the western part of the world. There is no doubt that these expansions and land holdings provided great economic success and a rise of Great Britain's power in Europe. But you two also mention that strategic overstretch proved to be a challenging enemy to Great Britain and its success. So should Great Britain be considered, a "superpower" even though their success was short lived? Great Britain lost all of its land holdings and with them, their power. To me, this does not sound very "super". Yes, Britain did have a considerable amount of power, but was it enough and did it live long enough for Great Britain to be considered a "superpower". In my opinion, for a country to be considered a "super power" it needs to be powerful, and have the means to secure and maintain that power. Great Britain was foolish and demonstrated a repeat of the Roman empire as Chelsea mentioned therefor not resulting in my book as a "superpower"
DeleteSo are you saying that nearly 100 years of success isn't super?
DeleteI see where you are coming from, Ben, and I do agree with you to a certain extent. I understand that Great Britain did not remain in complete power in the end, but in reality what country does? I believe that even though did not have indefinite success they should still be considered a "superpower" because of all the success in the time that it did live to be a "superpower". Also, I think that Great Britain was very very different than the Roman Empire in this case. The Roman Empire had a long history of screw ups and their demise was long coming.
DeleteI see the great debate happened here. However, I agree with Bella's argument.Great Britain was on a top of the economics for nearly one century. It is natural that golden nation falls someday, as other obese nations did in the past. In addition, I also agree that Britain is not a first "superpower". There were several countries which were on the top of the food chain for certain time, for example, Constantinople and Ottoman Empire. Personally, I think those countries were also considered as a "superpower". Power always change its owner.
DeleteI some what agree with Jeong, however I think that the term superpower is being used a bit arbitrarily. Britain was certainly a strong nation during this time period, an "obese" nation, yet was it really powerful enough to be considered a superpower. The countries around them all had respectable measures of power, be it economic or military, and Britain was certainly at the forefront, yet was it so Great that it outweighed those nations around it?
Delete2.) As I have mentioned in my earlier reply to Jeong, I believe that the international empire that Napoleon tried to create is much different than the international system or balance of power. It has come to my mind that the international system is a result of the failed empire of Napoleon. Napoleon had no intentions to keep peace or maintain balance in Europe. He did quite the opposite. Napoleon wanted all the power to himself and this is demonstrated during the French Revolution. The international system or balance of power, created free trade, international harmony, and international order. The people of Europe were not too crazy about the consequences they faced after the Great War and decided that something like that should never happen again. It causes too many problems, both politically and economically. Not to mention that the Great war greatly affected international relationships. This peace and stability provided by the international system encouraged long-term commercial and industrial investment, which in conclusion helped to stimulate the growth of a global economy. So in conclusion, Napoleon's empire was very different from the international system. The empire negatively impacted Europe, while the international system greatly improved Europe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that they were way different. One was more helpful than the other. But, if Napoleon was trying to conquer all of Europe, then he could have created harmony throughout his empire. Also, if Napoleon never came around, the international system wouldn't have been spurred into action. You even say that it was a result of his failed empire and therefore he was the cause of the international system that spread trade and international harmony through Europe. Napoleon was just trying to set up a dynasty and fulfill his own agenda, but inn the long run was the one who helped Europe to become a trading center with harmony throughout.
DeleteI would like to just say that in Napoleon's quest to conquer all of Europe, he ignored the fact that strategic overstretch was inevitable. I agree with you Ben, in the long run, however I believe that despite Napoleon's selfish agenda, he did try and promote liberty and succeeded slightly at first. I think that the international system by the congress of vienna showed more of a balance of power than Napoleon's system. Napoleon kept all the power to himself and did only what he thought was right. Ben, you seem to ignore the fact that the international system also ignored the greater democracy and nationalism, which led to a lot of major conflicts in the nineteenth century between and within major conflicts.
DeleteI agree that international system improved whole Europe. As I wrote in my post, competition created a good reason to develop economics and trades. Therefore nations of Europe became wealthier, and increased population supports this fact. I would like to say that Napoleon's aggressive expansion gave Europe fear about war, which made possible to have long time peace.
DeleteFrom Miss Reinhard: "I agree with a lot of what Jeong said. The balance of powers created by the Congress of Vienna and Napoleon's empire were two very different concepts. However, I do think the two systems had many things in common. When Napoleon was emperor, France was in constant competition with countries like England. During the balance of powers, European countries were also in competition. On the other hand, the Congress of Vienna established a sense of political stablitiy that was not guaranteed during Napoleon's reign
ReplyDelete1) I believe that Britain became to be the "victor" of the Congress of Vienna because they had a very strong naval power which was a major factor in becoming a "superpower". To be able to easily travel across the sea from one place to another and settling and establishing themselves quickly while everyone else was behind, was a huge advantage that they had. This was also due to the rise of new technology which was happening at that time. On top of expanding their boundaries to cover more land and to have more income of goods, Britain didn't become overwhelmed by money and have an inflation. They developed economic methods such as commodity-dealing, marine insurance, bill clearing and other advancements in the financial level. They were one step of everyone else in regards to taking care of their money. This prevented the major inflation that other countries had when they took in too much silver for the New World. I consider it to be the first "superpower." To go along with what Bella said, money means everything. If you have money then there are more options to buy the top kind of ships and machines, and better train their soldiers. Their expansion was great, no one was able to compete with that kind of power because Britain had connections all over the world, even in the New World. Strategic overstretch was of course a rick because although Britain had the money to send off people to these new places. Britain, or any other country, couldn't have complete and direct control on its international places. Their colonies would soon revolt and get out form under their grip, and in consequence losing land and power.
ReplyDeleteI agree mostly with what other people have said concerning Britain's title as the world's first "superpower." I'm not sure if you could call it the first ever when looking back at empires such as Rome, Charlemagne's empire and even Napoleon's empire. However, I do think that Britain could be named Europe's first modern superpower. When looking at strategic overstretch, I don't agree with Dylan or Bella. There was definitely some threat of too much land for the British, but they were arguably the most powerful empire in the world at the time. Britain owned huge amounts of land all around the world, but they had the economic success and great military to back themselves up. During the nineteenth century, Britain didn't seem to be very affected by strategic overstretch and they kept their title as "superpower" for many successful decades. As Gneisenau says, "Britain is mistress of the sea and neither in this dominion nor in world trade has she now a single rival to fear." A combination of an incredible military and huge success in trade and the economy was what gave Britain it's stability as a leader in world powers. No other nation seemed like it could threaten them, and strategic overstretch also did not seem like a huge problem for such a powerful empire.
DeleteI agree with Chelsea because Great Britain had a very strong naval power and a lot of economic advantages compare to their rivals. These advantages helped prosper the wealth of Great Britain and build up their economy and that is why I would consider Great Britain to be the first "superpower." But Great Britain had one problem which was strategic overstretch. Because Great Britain had a lot of connections all over the world, it makes it hard for Great Britain to control their territories and territories could be captured by another country and colonies could revolt and remove themselves from Great Britain’s control which causes Great Britain to lose land and power.
DeleteMiss Cusano: Is strategic over stretch inevitable in all cases? Would not Britain have maintained control over the American colonies if not for the Revolution, which was not strategic over stretch but political upheaval?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1.) Great Britain was looked upon as the victor at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 because Great Britain had a monopoly of naval power at sea which was simultaneously reinforced and underpinned by the economic lead which they had gained over all their rivals. This was the result of steady military expansionism and plunder. Britain also had overseas markets which helped Britain make money and long haul trades were also more profitable and provided a greater stimulus to shipping, commodity-dealing, marine insurance, bill-clearing, and banking activities which enhanced London’s position as the new financial center of the world. This overseas expansion had given Great Britain unchallenged access to vast new wealth which made Great Britain’s rivals angry. I would consider Great Britain to be the world's first "superpower” because they had a monopoly of naval power at sea and Britain was the wealthiest out of all its competitors. I would also consider Great Britain as the “superdominant economy” in the world’s trading structure because by 1815, Great Britain dominated maritime routes, profitable re-export trades, and Great Britain was well ahead of other societies in the process of industrialization. There is also a risk of strategic overstretch because Great Britain has markets that expand overseas which is difficult to control because the markets were far away from Great Britain and they only had a navy. This all means that the markets can be captured by another country.
ReplyDelete(1) Great Britain rose to power by possessing not only vaster resources that other nations around them, but also more advanced ones. Their massive navy controlled the seas around them, which greatly increased their mobility, especially in military and economic matters. Britain possessed the most sophisticated economic system in its region, which was envied by the countries around them. In addition to this, Britain controlled the most territory overseas, which can be attributed to its formidable naval force. In fact, its navy is Britain major opposing force against strategic overstreach. Its battle against strategic oevrstreach was also aided by the fact that its enemies where more concerned with fighting each other, than engaging with Britain. To say that Great Britain was the "victor" at the Congress of Vienna may be to brash, yet it is safe to say that they were economically and militarily ahead of the countries around them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt because Great Britain had a very strong naval power and possessed many territories overseas which greatly increased the wealth of the country and helped with their army. I also agree with you Matt that Great Britain’s rivalries were too busy fighting each other than getting involved with Great Britain and that Great Britain’s navy aided their strategic overstretch problem. I don’t agree with Matt when he states that Great Britain was not the "victor" at the Congress of Vienna because they greatly achieved (economically) wealth and militarily from their expansion.
Delete