Has there ever been an instance in history in which a superpower has willingly given up its stance as a superpower, or is power always balanced by the strategy or force of other nations?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarai:
Has there ever been an instance in history in which a superpower has willingly given up its stance as a superpower, or is power always balanced by the strategy or force of other nations?

---

I'm trying to think of instances. Not long before the beginnings of European colonialism, China sent a fleet as far as Africa, but the imperial government decided not to pursue the possibilities of an overseas empire, and the fleet was destroyed, and no further expeditions undertaken. That's the only case that comes immediately to mind of a policy of expansion being discarded despite a lack of opposition.

In every other case I can think of, nations that had the ability to dominate their neighbors have done so, expanding either until they met someone they could not dominate (and sometimes, as with Nazi Germany, attempting to continue to expand even then) or until internal conditions made further expansion impossible.

This domination, of course, need not be military, or even direct rule of a colonial government. The great European empires of the 19th century have disappeared, but France, the UK and Russia still dominate the international trade of their former colonies to a great extent, as the US does for Latin America and the Phillipines.

Alan Moore

An interesting question, Sarai, and a good response, Alan. I wonder if the failure of Chinese to carry on was just their usual 'not wanting to deal with foreigners.' I am also curious about Native Americans in this regard. While I know about their forming alliances and leagues, I do not know if any actually willingly gave up an advantage or willingly did not pursue any type of expansion for the reasons given in the question. I will ask some friends at Trivia tonight.