What is the greatest Middle Eastern military power?

[Jlaw]

I respectfully disagree. Apologies for the source, but here is a snippet from Wikipedia's entry on the Qing dynasty:



---
So Qing was brought down, fundamentally, by economic mismanagement (and the attending corruption). You've already acknowledged that the USSR was brought down by economic mismanagement. As far as Rome, of course it's never as simple as one factor, but I would assert that, like the others, the primary factor was economic in nature. Money goes a long way towards papering over all of the other flaws.

It would initially appear that exceptions to this rule are autocratic regimes that have the luxury of turning all of their military power inward, such as the dictatorships of the middle east and North Korea. It doesn't require nearly as much economic strength to suppress peasants, but I can also guarantee that those regimes won't last much longer, either.

Qing lasted 300 years. During Qing dynasty , China's territory was the largest in its history. Of course the later Qing dynasty became less wealthy as it was becoming harder to sustain a large landmass without being the world's reserve currency or a stronger military. But if was more of a result of lagging behind the west in military, as suppose to the decrease of wealth.

Look at SU. They disintegrated but due to a strong military no countries were able to invade them. Qing was different as it became weak militarily, than economically. Combine that with internal strife that eventually led to its fall.

Saying Qing was brought down by economic management is like saying world war I is started because Ferdinand doesn't wear a bullet proof vest. His death maybe a trigger, but the cause of the war is there long before Ferdinand is even born. Qing's fundamental problem is that it is a dynasty founded by a minority race and as a result its ruling concentrated on caste segregation and maintaining a feudal dynasty rather than moving on with industrial revolution. The wealth of Qing empire is also exaggerated because it is agricultural nation instead of industrial nation and its GDP (if you apply the term) is mostly in farmers and locked in the land. You actually have much fewer cash flow. Taking the Boxer Protocol (辛丑条约) for example, it is about the most unequal treaty in Chinese history and the Qing empire has trouble paying for its 450 million taels of fine silver. However, if you compare it to what the French coughed up after Franco-Prussia war you will see that the payment for Boxer Protocol is a little more than half of the settlement for Franco-Prussia war and the French paid it off in three years. This really shouldn't be surprising, because we are comparing industrial nations with agriculture nations. Qing's fall is ultimately before it was lagging behind the tide of history and it got swiped away.

I honestly don't know how you say "China will learn the lesson again" with a straight face when you are an American.

Qing disintegrated due to the inability to keep up with modernizing its military. Look at Soviet Union. It dissolved in the 1990s but no countries were able to invade them because they still had a strong modern army.

Wikipedia is incorrect as most western sources when it comes to Chinese history.

 

[ephone]

To be honest, I see no complication at all.

Israel is for sure No. 1 in middle east region. None will beat Israel for any war in the near future.

Like I said, it is a rather complicated question on which nation has the greatest military in middle east. Israel certainly doesn't have the best economy, population or land (heck, it is barely bigger than Beijing has about 1/3 of the population), but due to its strategic significance for US, other middle eastern countries would have a really tough time fighting it despite they maybe stronger.

 

[Zhukov]

Considering by Defence Budget and Population Backing Definitely Saudi Arabia without a doubt.
But If you consider Indeginous Arms Industry its Israel.

And Second comes Egypt.
Rest of Middle East Armies are Bull Shit Crap by either Technology or size of force.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Saying Qing was brought down by economic management is like saying world war I is started because Ferdinand doesn't wear a bullet proof vest. His death maybe a trigger, but the cause of the war is there long before Ferdinand is even born. Qing's fundamental problem is that it is a dynasty founded by a minority race and as a result its ruling concentrated on caste segregation and maintaining a feudal dynasty rather than moving on with industrial revolution. The wealth of Qing empire is also exaggerated because it is agricultural nation instead of industrial nation and its GDP (if you apply the term) is mostly in farmers and locked in the land. You actually have much fewer cash flow. Taking the Boxer Protocol (辛丑条约) for example, it is about the most unequal treaty in Chinese history and the Qing empire has trouble paying for its 450 million taels of fine silver. However, if you compare it to what the French coughed up after Franco-Prussia war you will see that the payment for Boxer Protocol is a little more than half of the settlement for Franco-Prussia war and the French paid it off in three years. This really shouldn't be surprising, because we are comparing industrial nations with agriculture nations. Qing's fall is ultimately before it was lagging behind the tide of history and it got swiped away.

I honestly don't know how you say "China will learn the lesson again" with a straight face when you are an American.

...so you're saying Qing's economic weakness was the primary cause of its decline, right?

As far as "China will learn the lesson again," of course I am serious. To claim that China will maintain it's preeminent position from now until the end of time is not a serious assertion, unless you're Francis Fukuyama. China was the pre-eminent world power before the industrial revolution, then it was displaced, i.e. lesson #1. China is rising again, and at some indeterminate point in the future, will decline, i.e. lesson #2, i.e. "China will learn the lesson again."

Not sure why you are taking this personally. As far as I am aware, China is the only power to ever get a second shot at #1, so it is quite fortunate.

Qing lasted 300 years. During Qing dynasty , China's territory was the largest in its history. Of course the later Qing dynasty became less wealthy as it was becoming harder to sustain a large landmass without being the world's reserve currency or a stronger military. But if was more of a result of lagging behind the west in military, as suppose to the decrease of wealth.

Look at SU. They disintegrated but due to a strong military no countries were able to invade them. Qing was different as it became weak militarily, than economically. Combine that with internal strife that eventually led to its fall.


Qing disintegrated due to the inability to keep up with modernizing its military. Look at Soviet Union. It dissolved in the 1990s but no countries were able to invade them because they still had a strong modern army.

Wikipedia is incorrect as most western sources when it comes to Chinese history.

Qing was not able to sustain a strong military because it was not able to sustain a strong economy to fund that military. The SU's economy was extremely weak, and it dedicated a disproportionate amount of its budget to maintain its military, which was unsustainable. It's the same everywhere, whether we discuss the Ottoman empire, the British empire, or Pax Americana.

 

[tranquilium]

...so you're saying Qing's economic weakness was the primary cause of its decline, right?

As far as "China will learn the lesson again," of course I am serious. To claim that China will maintain it's preeminent position from now until the end of time is not a serious assertion, unless you're Francis Fukuyama. China was the pre-eminent world power before the industrial revolution, then it was displaced, i.e. lesson #1. China is rising again, and at some indeterminate point in the future, will decline, i.e. lesson #2, i.e. "China will learn the lesson again."

Not sure why you are taking this personally. As far as I am aware, China is the only power to ever get a second shot at #1, so it is quite fortunate.

Qing was not able to sustain a strong military because it was not able to sustain a strong economy to fund that military. The SU's economy was extremely weak, and it dedicated a disproportionate amount of its budget to maintain its military, which was unsustainable. It's the same everywhere, whether we discuss the Ottoman empire, the British empire, or Pax Americana.

Didn't I specific say that economy is NOT the root cause of Qing's decline? Qing's problem is that it did not change when it needed to be, such as moving from an agricultural nation to an industrial nation and spread general education, etc.

Nations do rise and fall. It is the natural cycle of the thing, but then again there are long cycles and short cycles. Chinese civilization historical has been able to maintain strength significantly longer than its European/Middle Eastern counterparts, owing to its more unified culture and less prone to suffer ethnic and religious conflict. Yeah, China may decline again some times in the future, but that would be five to ten centuries if history is anything to go by. So, I would dispute that China would "learn the lesson again" in your life time.

 

[bolo]

@Chinese-Dragon @Arzamas 16 @ChineseTiger1986 @vostok @TaiShang @senheiser @xunzi @bolo @sreekumar @cnleio @xudeen @Tshering22 @KirovAirship @Star Wars @Jlaw @cirr @ephone @tranquilium @rcrmj @Beast @Genesis @Globenim @eazzy @xuxu1457 @rott @Gabriel92@Sanchez@American Eagle @Oldman1

If you guys have expertise in the matter, please vote as well.
(P.S. Don't quote this post, at the risk of annoying the tagged people)

Iran. I always think Bird country is not in middle east.