Printer Friendly

Fall of superpower.

Today is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, and in the course of the day you are almost bound to hear or read somebody claiming that it "changed history." It was a very big battle, after all, and it would be a century before Europe saw war on that scale again. But did the events of June 18, 1815 "change history"? Probably not.

The really decisive battle was fought a year-and-a-half before that near Leipzig in Germany: The 'Battle of the Nations'. Three times more men were involved in that battle than fought at Waterloo. There were many more battles before the Russian, Austrian and Prussian armies entered Paris and Napoleon finally abdicated as emperor of the French in the spring of 1814, but he never won another battle.

Napoleon was given a mini-kingdom on the island of Elba, off the Italian coast, to keep himself busy. The victors began to put Europe back together after 20 years of almost unbroken war, around three million combat deaths, and a comparable number of civilian casualties. And after only 10 months, Napoleon escaped from Elba and went back to France for another try.

He moved fast, hoping to defeat the British army in what is now Belgium before the other allies arrived to reinforce it, and he almost succeeded. The British commander, the Duke of Wellington, said the battle of Waterloo was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life." In the end, late in the afternoon, the Prussian (German) army showed up and turned the tide. But if Napoleon hadn't lost at Waterloo, he would have been defeated a little later.

Britain had already overtaken France as Europe's biggest economy (and in those days, that meant the world's biggest economy). The industrial revolution in Britain was already into its second generation, while France had barely entered the first. Even in sheer numbers of people, a low birth rate meant that France would fall behind Russia, then behind Germany, and eventually even behind Britain in population.

So even if Napoleon could go on winning battles, he couldn't win the war. In the end he couldn't even win the battles. He was running out of soldiers, and his enemies had spent a generation at war learning (very expensively) to fight battles just as well as he did. Waterloo only confirmed what everybody with eyes could see already: France was finished as Europe's superpower.

Then Britain got a century at the top (and after 500 years of Anglo-French wars, it never had to fight France again). The US is now about 75 years into its term as the reigning superpower -- and you are probably assuming that I am now going to speculate who gets the crown next. Wrong on two counts.

First of all, it's a thorny crown, and nobody in their right mind would want it. The relevant statistic (which hides in plain sight) is that the more powerful a country is, the more wars it fights and the more people it loses. More power doesn't give you greater security; it just gets you into more trouble.

Secondly, about half the time there is no undisputed top dog. That was the situation for the century 1600-1700, when Spain was in visible decline but France was not yet ready to assume the mantle of sole superpower. It was equally true in 1945-1990, when nuclear weapons (the great equaliser) meant that the US and the Soviet Union were co-equal superpowers even though the US economy was far bigger than the Soviet one.

And now, with the American superpower allegedly in decline, there is obsessive speculation about when China will step in and take over the role -- or might it turn out to be India instead? As though it were still the early 19th century, when France was going down and Britain was taking over. It isn't.

Military power doesn't deliver the goods any more. The US has lost almost every war and mini-war it has fought in the past 50 years (except Grenada and Panama), even though it accounts for around half of the planet's spending on defence. In the present global strategic environment, decisive victories are about as rare as unicorns.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is probably a good thing. Victory is a much over-rated concept.

G D

Copyright 2015 Al Hilal Publishing and Marketing Group Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
COPYRIGHT 2015 SyndiGate Media Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Gulf Daily News (Manama, Bahrain)
Geographic Code:4EUFR
Date:Jun 17, 2015
Words:738
Previous Article:Ali Salman trial 'transparent'.
Next Article:Manama ranked 91st most expensive city in the world.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters