Who was 16th century leading world power?

Mangekyou said:

I think it's important to remember though that the English ships were better built, faster and had more penetrating armaments than their Spanish counterparts. The one thing England did suffer from during the armada crisis, was a lack of gunpowder and ammunition, but qualitatively, they were better built than the Spanish. The one thing the Spanish did have, that could gain them periods of re-taking the initiative, was experience. Spanish convoy systems from the Americas to Spain were almost unbreakable.

Click to expand...

Similer to the tiny but well built early American navy.



I agree with the consensus. Spain owned the 16th century as much as Britain the 19th or America in the 20th. Which begs the question, who "owned" the centuries between the above? France is definatlly is a contender.

Yekkelle said:

Similer to the tiny but well built early American navy.



I agree with the consensus. Spain owned the 16th century as much as Britain the 19th or America in the 20th. Which begs the question, who "owned" the centuries between the above? France is definatlly is a contender.

Click to expand...

From the mid 17th to the mid 18th, I would agree that France were the probably the leading European superpower (though their invincibility was shattered during the Spanish war of succession). From the mid 18th until WWI, I would say Britain took over. That is assuming we are talking about land and sea overall.

If it was just naval, I would say the Dutch were the leading superpower during the mid 17th century until the first quarter of the 18th, when Britain and France took over. From the mid 17th on-wards, I would say Britain started to go ahead of France and gain more conclusive victories over them.

Mike Lynch said:

During the 16th century, the Spanish were a land power just as much as a sea power. The Spanish tercios were Europe's most feared troops, and the rest of Europe copied Spanish tactics and armaments. During the 16th century Spain castrated France and controlled directly or indirectly central Europe.

Tercio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Either way, the question about who was the most powerful, not who was the most powerful on land. It is difficult to be the world's most powerful if you can only compete on land - the British displayed this masterfully in later centuries. The Spanish dominated on both land and sea throughout the century, while Ottoman sea power was crushed in the 1570's.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the might of the Spanish army, but the fact that the Ottomans lost their maritime authority is a bit of a myth, the result of massive Christian propaganda after Lepanto.
The Ottomans quickly rebuilt a powerful fleet(the real problem was the maritime experience lost with the death of so many sailors and commanders), which played a very important role in Ottoman-Venetian War and in the War of Candia
The navies of the Porte remained a stable presence from the high Adriatic(Dalmatia in particular was very vulnerable to Ottomans raids) to the lower Aegean for the full XVI century.

Tercios were very good but not completely unbeatable:

http://historum.com/war-military-hi...ghout-history-6.html#post1547985?postcount=55

Some great cavalry vs tercios actions:

In the battle of Turnhuot (1597) 800 Dutch and English cavalry defeated Spanish cavalry and then charging from the front and from the rear simultaneously, destroyed 4 tercios (one Spanish, two Walloon and one German) under count Varas.

In the battle of Nieuwpoort (1600) a charge of few squadrons of Dutch cuirassiers (which also included units consisting of soldiers from England, Scotland, France and Germany) destroyed the tercio of the Spanish right wing.

In the battle of White Mountain (1620) two cavalry squadrons under Anhalt destroyed one tercio under Breuner-Tefrenbach.

In the battle of Rocroi (1643) some Spanish tercios were also defeated by French cavalry charges.

=========================================

When it comes to examples of other-than-tercio infantry defeating tercios:

- battle of Heiligerlee (1568) - tercio lured into ambush by Dutch cavalry and defeated in an ambush by Dutch infantry

- battle of Breitenfeld (1631) - tercios defeated by Swedish combined arms tactics (artillery, infantry, cavalry)

- some battles of the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648), when Dutch infantry used checkered formations and superior firepower

- Rocroi (1643) again, in case of some of Spanish tercios, defeated by French infantry

=====================

Tercios were also vulnerable to artillery fire, due to being such clustered formations.

But most of these examples above are from the 17th century.

In terms of global influence I would say Spain the 16th century; France the 17th, GB 18th and 19th and USA 20th. It's too early to say which power will dominate the 21st century, although USA is top dog...........at the moment

16th century is 1500-1600 and in that period Spain didn't conquer Aztecs until two decades into the century and the final defeat of the Incas wasn't until 1570s. The Spanish convoys did not start until 1560s and weren't fully operational until nearly 1600s. Much of that gold was used to fight wars against Ottomans amongst others with no positive results and in fact further Ottoman expansion in eastern Europe while in western Europe there was more benefits to Hapsburg power.

In that same period Ottomans were pushing deeper into Hungary and won several major sea battles as well as fighting Poland and Habsburgs to a standstill and defeating Venice, Wallachia, and others. In the east Ottomans also fought several wars with Safavids while still fighting in the west. Ottomans also allied with France against Habsburgs though with little result.

Mentioning Lepanto which merely checked Ottomans temporarily and took the combined fleets of most of the Christian Mediterranean sea powers without mentioning the previous and subsequent Ottoman victories is turning a blind eye to actual balance of power. Despite Lepanto the result was status quo with Ottomans controlling eastern Mediterranean and the various other powers fighting over the rest.

It was only in 17th century Ottoman sea power declined noticeably with both a rise in piracy and a near total reliance on Barbary coastal fleets and corsairs as contracted fleets while Ottoman fleet in Constantinople shrunk and Cossacks managed to raid all over Black sea which during 16th century never saw an enemy fleet. However Ottomans retained most of their island possessions in the eastern Mediterranean despite setbacks and much of the Mediterranean trade lost relevance in 17th century anyway foreshadowing the fall of Venice and the loss of importance of Sicily and rest of Italy to the Habsburgs who focused on other more lucrative places.

So considering even large alliances of European powers had difficulty checking Ottoman expansion much less reversing it I think we have to give 16th century to either Ottomans or Ming China who only began to fail in the last decade of the 16th century. I give more credit to Ottomans however as they still managed to expand and recover from any checks on their power while Ming China exposed its inability despite vast size to handle prolonged conflicts both on the northern border and during Imjin War. Ming China also faced several large earthquakes and natural disasters during 16th century which created several internal rebellions and other disorder that Ottomans did not have to deal with.

17th century is the Habsburg century as Ottomans were pushed out of Hungary and the War of Spanish succession had yet to occur. During 16th century Habsburgs were still consolidating their power through marriages and alliances and did achieve peak of direct territorial rule (Junior branch of HRE and Portugal were lost during 17th century) but Austro-Hungarian Empire also coalesced in this period.

Mangekyou said:

From the mid 17th to the mid 18th, I would agree that France were the probably the leading European superpower (though their invincibility was shattered during the Spanish war of succession). From the mid 18th until WWI, I would say Britain took over. That is assuming we are talking about land and sea overall.

If it was just naval, I would say the Dutch were the leading superpower during the mid 17th century until the first quarter of the 18th, when Britain and France took over. From the mid 17th on-wards, I would say Britain started to go ahead of France and gain more conclusive victories over them.

Click to expand...

Britain from the mid 18th? That seems a bit early in my view. Surely the rise of Napoleonic France shows that France was the superpower until their defeat in 1814/15.

We should also take into consideration what we mean by 'superpower.' Militarily only? Culturally France was top dog for many centuries. It is one of history's ironies that the same foreign noblesse who brought down the French Empire spent much of their time speaking French and reading French literature amongst themselves. Alexander I once claimed he spoke better French than Napoleon.

The Ming.

The Ottomans were more efficient and stable (as well as terrifying), but for sheer population size, the Ming greatly eclipsed them.

Luckily for Europe the Ming were pretty far away.

Pacific_Victory said:

Britain from the mid 18th? That seems a bit early in my view.

Click to expand...

I would say Britain usurped France' position after defeating them in the Seven Years War.

Surely the rise of Napoleonic France shows that France was the superpower until their defeat in 1814/15.

Click to expand...

They were military dominant on the European mainland, but what happened outside? In Egypt they were evicted, and their colonies in the Caribbean and India were taken one by one. They also failed in their invasion attempts of Britain.

It really depends upon how one defines a "superpower" as you already mentioned below. That is my take on events anyway. Even with the mainland dominance of France, they were unable to project that very successfully outside of Europe, whereas Britain, though its army was impotent in the early years, was able to project her power anywhere in the globe. The key to this power projection was of course the Royal Navy.

We should also take into consideration what we mean by 'superpower.' Militarily only? Culturally France was top dog for many centuries.

Click to expand...

No doubt.

It is one of history's ironies that the same foreign noblesse who brought down the French Empire spent much of their time speaking French and reading French literature amongst themselves. Alexander I once claimed he spoke better French than Napoleon.

Click to expand...

Yes, back then noblesse oblige and the lingua franca belonged to France, but that changed.

Pacific_Victory said:

Certainly it must be the Empire of Charles V of Habsburg, Holy Roman and Spanish Emperor.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the Spanish under Charles V was the strongest...who was of course also the HRE at the time.

The Ottomans or the Habsburgs. Spain in the modern sense didn't really exist, it was a collection of crowns held by the Habsburgs.

Nikephoros said:

The Ottomans or the Habsburgs. Spain in the modern sense didn't really exist, it was a collection of crowns held by the Habsburgs.

Click to expand...

The Kingdom of Spain did indeed exist in the 16th century. Aragon and Castille, the crowns I assume you are refering to were joined together under the joint rulers in 1492. By the time of Charles I(V) von Habsburg the Spanish kingdom was solid and the likelyhood of its spliting was the same as if they split today.

Castile, its armies were feared, its government was respected throughout Europe.
In my opinion Portugal cant be considered as an superpower strictu sensu. Yes, its merchants carved out a vast empire but first of all it was a commercial nation. Its armies werent efficient. For instance battle of Alcacer Quibir, total anihilation.

Ottoman Empire was at the furthest borders of her so I think Ottoman Empire, but not at navy for sure.

Domen said:

Check this thread:

http://historum.com/asian-history/5...ortuguese-naval-battle-tamao-1521-1522-a.html

Click to expand...

That may be so and I see the thread is called "Who was the 16th century leading world power" but as this is a European thread, i would look at what was going on in Europe at the time and there certainly wasn't a perceived threat from China. Spain was the power that all feared at that time.

Koseku, Ottoman Empire was a major power on the Mediterranean sea also. Combined Spanish, Venetian and minor allies could match Ottoman fleet- battle of Lepanto. When they were alone they didnt try to engage into battle. During great siege of Malta. Filip II and his viceroy in Naples Garcia Alvarez de Toledo didnt send their galleys because their where afraid that whole enterprise would end like battle of Djerba- where half Christian fleet was destroyed or captured.
Moreover, Ottomans could build galleys faster than their opponents. After total annihilation after Lepanto, new fleet was ready in one year. Construction of those galleys was a true copy of Venetians so they where quite good

Spain for sure, thanks to the gold and treasure from its new world territories.
I have to give some credit to ottomans as well .Overall 16th century wasn't a good era in many terms.

As someone said above, all of Spain and Portugal's success in its age of discovery and enrichment in natural resources was essentially built on the back of demand from China. In fact, Spain's financing of the voyage that discovered America was from the start an attempt to make contacts with China. Until the discovery of gold and silver in the Americas, Spain, like every other European power, had nothing that even remotely interested the Chinese. The 16th century was a year of economic crisis for Spain, as the huge influxes of silver and gold inflated its economy so much so that it went bankrupt six times! In my opinion it's not possible to talk of a 'world power' in the 16th century as one does today simply because the world then could not be considered a single unit in any sense: economically, politically etc. Therefore we have to consider which was the most powerful country by itself, undeniably this was China. Europe only began to make serious inroads against the wealthy Asian powers at the earliest in the middle of the 17th century, and even then it was only confined to a few burgeoning states in northwest Europe. The Iberian powers NEVER matched China.