AH Challenge: Great Power World

Starting in January 1, 1900. Your mission is to create the absolute most numbers of great/super powers possible. You can use any means (outside of asb intervention) to succeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gunslinger said:
Starting in January 1, 1900. Your mission is to create the absolute most numbers of great/super powers possible. You can use any eans (outside of asb intervention) to succeed.
So, basically, avoid the World Wars, and stabilize China...That said, our empires will all need reform of some kind....
 
Well, if the central powers win WWI, without seriously hurting the entente, then we could possibly have 8 powers: USA, British Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, French Empire, Ottoman Empire and Japanese Empire.

Maybe, a regional power will rise in South America, too... Brazil, perhaps, and maybe also China as a competion to Japan (propped up the anti-Japanese powers)

whew... 10 powers
 
Elidor said:
Well, if the central powers win WWI, without seriously hurting the entente, then we could possibly have 8 powers: USA, British Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, French Empire, Ottoman Empire and Japanese Empire.

Maybe, a regional power will rise in South America, too... Brazil, perhaps, and maybe also China as a competion to Japan (propped up the anti-Japanese powers)

whew... 10 powers
Now, give them all nukes:p

I bet I can make it 11.

Have the Ottomans hold out more in the Balkan Wars in Europe, but still eventually lose the Levant, Hasa, Hedjaz, Libya, and Iraq. Next, have it take the Caucasus states from Russia during its revolution (assuming it still happens), and enable Egypt (including Sudan, and maybe Libya) to take control of the Levant. Infact, then give Iraq to Persia. 12.
 
Iraq was pretty much an artificial state created by the Allies after WWI, so basically, we can have Suuni parts of Iraq joing Syria, Levant States and Eqypt while the Shi'ite part joins Persia. A Pan Turkic state will be more stable than the old ottoman empire, so yes, your idea works.

What of India? If it seceeds after WWI... it could rise as a power, too. 13?
 
Elidor said:
Iraq was pretty much an artificial state created by the Allies after WWI, so basically, we can have Suuni parts of Iraq joing Syria, Levant States and Eqypt while the Shi'ite part joins Persia. A Pan Turkic state will be more stable than the old ottoman empire, so yes, your idea works.

What of India? If it seceeds after WWI... it could rise as a power, too. 13?
Or, we get an "Indo-Aryan" Union between India and Persia:p

By the way, I know that Iraq is an artificial country, I was just keeping my post concise. Syria would be interesting united to Egypt, however...

Now, if we kick Britain off of the Arabian Peninsula, maybe the Sauds could consolidate everyone into a power, peninsular Arab state?
 
Imajin said:
I don't see why you assume a Pan-Turkic state would be more stable- I'd say it'd be less so.
And to me clear, I was not including in that Central Asia, but that might have the potential to be a powerful state in its own respect...
 
The Ottoman Empire never had any huge problems in the Arab Provinces, though. The Arab Revolt by the British in WW1 was really a dismal failure, but was expanded for propagandistic purposes... I'd say that if the Ottomans won WW1, they'd have no problems holding on to Mesopotamia.
 
Imajin said:
The Ottoman Empire never had any huge problems in the Arab Provinces, though. The Arab Revolt by the British in WW1 was really a dismal failure, but was expanded for propagandistic purposes... I'd say that if the Ottomans won WW1, they'd have no problems holding on to Mesopotamia.
Reminds of a timeline I'm going to write one of these days;)
 
Imajin said:
I don't see why you assume a Pan-Turkic state would be more stable- I'd say it'd be less so.

Well nationalism was pretty strong among the Turks, and they even tried to publicize an artificial language or "standardized" turk for this purpose. Anyway, to many Turks, union with other Turkic people would have made them more "European" than holding a great multiethnic empire as an oriental despot would.
 
Elidor said:
Well nationalism was pretty strong among the Turks, and they even tried to publicize an artificial language or "standardized" turk for this purpose. Anyway, to many Turks, union with other Turkic people would have made them more "European" than holding a great multiethnic empire as an oriental despot would.
I admit to not knowing much about the various Turkish ethnicities, but consider all the problems a, for example, Pan-Slavic or even Pan-Scandinavian state would have... would ethnically Turkish groups like the Uzbeks or Kazakhs really want to be under the control of far-off Istanbul?
 
Imajin said:
I admit to not knowing much about the various Turkish ethnicities, but consider all the problems a, for example, Pan-Slavic or even Pan-Scandinavian state would have... would ethnically Turkish groups like the Uzbeks or Kazakhs really want to be under the control of far-off Istanbul?
In my conception for this thread, I merely meant Azeris, Dagestanis, and others, some nonturkic, in Transcaucasia....
 
Imajin said:
I admit to not knowing much about the various Turkish ethnicities, but consider all the problems a, for example, Pan-Slavic or even Pan-Scandinavian state would have... would ethnically Turkish groups like the Uzbeks or Kazakhs really want to be under the control of far-off Istanbul?

because it is better off being under the control of an even-farther-off Moscow ? Well, from waht I know of Turkic history, almost as many people wanted a unified nation of their own, rather than independent states. Movements still exists today that call for the radical unification of Central Asia (including Chinese Turkestan and Iraqi Kurdistan)
 
You could probably throw in Argentina as a counter weight to Brazil, create some sort of unified Balkan regional power such as greater serbo-bulgarian union and have a Belgium/luxemburg/netherlands union as a bufferstate power between France and Germany.
 
Top