State vs. Market

I like your vision of a Golden Economic Age. But I'm not sure it ever existed.

Considering the state's role in the economy, I'm conviced it should strickly stick to what it does best.E. g. sending satelites in the galaxy

Originally posted by Temujin ataman, does the book by Kennedy also has statistics of Prussia and Austria? and perhaps also of the smaller German principalities?

Edited by ataman - 26-Aug-2006 at 08:25

Originally posted by Maharbbal Concidering the Russian victories against Kazan, the Ottoman, Poland or Sweden, even though they testify the rising strenght of the Czars, they've been won against second or third rank powers.

I didn't want to continue this subject any more, but I have to react now. Maharbbal, you shouldn't minimize Russian enemies (and victories). For example Sweden. However in the begining of the 18th c. Swedish army was recognized as the best European army, it lost with Russia. Or Ottoman Empire - even thought its offensive power was broken in 1683, it was still a powerfull country in the 18th c.. You also forgot about Prussia, which was defeated by Russia in the 18th c. and only thanks to the liking of the new Tsar for Prussia this country survived the war with Russia.

Originally posted by Maharbbal And for 1812-3 Russian victory upon Napoleon, one couldn't argue the burn-it-all-so-they-won't-have-anything-to- eat strategy is proof of a major power behaviour...

Good Russian strategy shows that the country had not only numerous army, but also talented commanders. IMHO it is not important how sombody wins, but if he wins.

BTW, sombody can blame Napoleon that he won many battles thanks to better strategy and tactic . 

Edited by ataman

Hi,
Also, I'm a bite sad this thread evolved into a "was Russia
strong" topic, but here is what I've grasped about this issue in
the very valuable book of Francois Bluche titled "the enlighted
despotism": Russia by the mid-18th century was an extremely
impressive power but in a 17th century fashion. The steel
industry Catherine the Great developped was the same (only
privatised) as the one Peter I and Elizabeth of Russia created
according to a backward-ish system based on protectionist
theory and partly slave-like workforce.
The ideal of Catherine, Frederick, Joseph II and cie was not
Georges III's England the European Superpower of the time nor
even Louis XV's France but the Sun-King realm and way of
development . Of course this wasn't a bad choice per se as
their countries were closer from 1640's France than from 1780's
England. Hence their very power proves what their
weaknesses are.
Concidering the Russian victories against Kazan, the Ottoman,
Poland or Sweden, even though they testify the rising strenght
of the Czars, they've been won against second or third rank
powers. And for 1812-3 Russian victory upon Napoleon, one
couldn't argue the burn-it-all-so-they-won't-have-anything-to-
eat strategy is proof of a major power behaviour...
Bye.

Originally posted by Maju I just don't believe those figures:

That's your choice .

Originally posted by Maju Where do yiu get such distorted statistics from?

I told you. It is from the book ''The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'' by Paul Kennedy.

Originally posted by Maju Which vested interests do you have in faking an unexistent glory of Tzarist Russia?

Maju, I would like to open your eyes . It is the only one my interest. As I wrote, as the Pole I might be the last person which will love 18th and 19th c. Russia - the country which conquered and occupied my country. During those centuries Russia was the biggest enemy of Poland. It was Russia which partitioned Poland. It was Russia which defeated Napoleon and his Polish allies. And it was Russia which occupied my country until 1918. But my feelings to Russia won't change historical facts. These facts which I show here.

Edited by ataman

Originally posted by majkes1 Russia was powerful military but weak economicaly. That's why would sooner or later lost to Western powers.

Economical weakness of Russia is also exaggeration. Look at the GNP of European countries in 19th c. During most of 19th c. Russia had GNP even biggger than GB.

Russia was only iferior to GB (but it wasn't inferior to for example France) when we compare industrialization of these countries. Below are next datas from Kennedy's book.

Industrialization of countries as a part of industrialization of the world:

in 1750: GB 1.9%, Russia 5%, France 4% (note - in that time, Russian industry made over 2.5 times more products than British one)

in 1800: GB 4.3%, Russia 5.6%, France 4.2%

in 1830: GB 9.5%, Russia 5.6%, France 5.2%

in 1860: GB 19.9%, Russia 7%, France 7.9%

in 1880: GB 22.9%, Russia 7.6%, France 7.8%

in 1900: GB 18.5%, Russia 8.8%, France 6.8%

So, at least until 1800 it was Russia which was the most industrialised European country. In 1900 Russia was still more industrialised than France (and only about 2 times less industrialised than GB).

Russia was powerful military but weak economicaly. That's why would sooner or later lost to Western powers.

Originally posted by Maju Not yet. Russia's weakness showed up as the century marched on and industrialization got stabilished everywhere... but in Russia.

Russia was weaker in the end of 19th c. than in the begining of 19th c. But it doesn't mean that it was 'extremely weak' country. BTW, after 1864 Russia wasn't feudel country any more.

Originally posted by Maju Russia lacked the competitive edge to shadow western powers.

Let me explain something. I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe. But if we compare any other European country to Russia, I would vote for Russia as the strongest country.

Originally posted by Maju It had a huge territory with a very harsh climate and masses of conscriptable slave-peasants... that's about all.

That's only your opinion unsupported by historical facts.

Originally posted by Maju Else, Russia would have annexed Europe - it didn't and it could not even dream in that. It could only expand against semitribal peoples of the steppes of Asia - just that.

Maju, I recommend you to check the map of Russia (or rather western Russian borders) in 1700 and in 1900.

And I'll repeat again - I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I would have to disagree with that.  Back in this thread, we discussed Spain and the Dutch and Sweden.  All those powers made wealth out of some control of trade, and none of them could feed themselves, let alone make wealth from selling agricultural produce.

Pikeshot, I think that here is some kind of misunderstanding. You write what was important for the income to the Treasure (control of trade or rather taxes from control of trade). I write about GNP, which (until 1850) was created largely by agriculture. These are not the same things.

And last notice - even if most of GNP was created by agriculture, it doesn't mean that the industry in early 19th c. (or earlier) wasn't important. It was important, but at least until 1850 bigger part of GNP was created by agriculture. And therefore Russia in 19th c. had GNP even bigger than GB.

 

Edited by ataman

Originally posted by Maju Just read the Wikipedia entry on his main book and he doesn't seem to say what you say he says.

Maju,

please read the book or believe me that I really quote Kennedy.

Originally posted by Maju As far as I can understand from this article, I could surely agree with this Kennedy in most of what he says. Yet I can't agree with your interpretation of it - which is something totally different. So, then, why don't you quit hiding behind others' name and start reasoning your position on your own words and with your own logic?

I do it . When I don't agree with Kennedy's inference I write (and explain) my opinion.

Edited by ataman