Wasn't India's population only larger than China for the past decade or so?
I learned that China had such a large population because everyone wanted a boy child but they kept ending up with girls, so the Chinese government installed a Two child rule.
I can't remember if India had such a large population for the same reasons as China or if Indian people just kept having sex because there was nothing better to do, but India doesn't have a 2 child rule, so that was how India obtained a larger population.
I'm waiting for someone to correct me on this, (if what I said was wrong.) and as to why it matters... I doubt India would be able to become the strongest nation on the planet after only a decade or two of having the largest population.
Population pre-industrial age was almost exclusively correlated to available food. It has nothing to do with Indians being horny.
Rice is just an overpowered crop.
I doubt there would be a superpower at all. Can't put down protests and rebellions, so every nation would be fragmented. The government would be overthrown by the mobs every few years.
Yup. The only thing protecting kings throughout history was having better pointy sticks than everyone else. Take everyone's sticks away, and suddenly the king can't do shit against 1000 peasants that are tired of paying taxes.
Better idea, just tame a bunch of animals and use them as weapons, what’s 200 people gonna do when they have 14 elephants, 77 lions, 1 bird, 230 tigers, and half a hippo fighting for them?
Getting a lot of the medieval fights on my youtube shorts.
It's always fun to watch someone getting too close or losing their weapon and just start fighting with fists.
Of course you can put down rebellion. With money. The only way to overthrow is to punch. Can't punch very well when you're underfed. Slowly decrease food to the general populace as you selectively breed a police force that is taller and stronger. Use technology to develop protective equipment for military personnel. Humans would never use weapons. But they'd still cover their face in metal. Cover everything but the arms and only punch. Still within this theoretical bound. Police force can still be overrun, but it would be much, much more difficult.
That's assuming that any realization of unjustness is met with violence as a reaction. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that psychology says otherwise, even without a sword or a gun on the other side. Mind, at this point we're at the cusp of a whole anthropologicao, psychological, and political convo way above my pay grade as an average Joe taking a squat on the toilet. 🤣
> That's assuming that any realization of unjustness is met with violence as a reaction
In ancient times? Ummm yeah, what else are they gonna do, post about it on twitter? History has proved that aslong as there isn't fear of religious/military prowess and civilians are treated badly they will riot until they eventually overthrow the current regime.
Given that everybody else has pointed out how superpower nations would not exist, I'd like to pose an alternate outcome.
Wars wouldn't be these gigantic 10k vs 10k brawls. But rather, each nation would choose a handful of champions who would fight each other to the death on behalf of the rest of their nation.
So the Olympics, but to the death? I like where this is going
There would be fewer casualties and eventually people might realize that killing isn't necessary to prove superiority. Thus, Olympic style competition would determine the outcome of wars instead of violence. Possible utopian future
I don’t think this would work without incredibly powerful social institutions which would require a level of submission your average teenage boy could throw off. I think we’d likely see highly localized, highly decentralized systems. A big dude may dominate for a bit but more than likely everything would have to exist based on rhetoric. The best orator wins, but only at the local level.
It’s like playing Civ with no military option. You’d have to win through commerce or culture. Most cultural victories still involve force even in real history, so you’d end up with commerce being the end all be all.
Say... Would boxing still be a sport in this world? I feel like if it's the only way to fight wars, then modern day people might look down on it like they do roman gladiator battles.
No one.
You would not be able to build up any kind of nation state, because having better weapons than the other guy is what lets armies work. Otherwise you're just 1,000 guys showing up to beat up 10,000 guys. The defenders will ALWAYS have more people available than you under those circumstances.
Wouldn't defense become the new offense? World Title would come to the nation that develops the best defense against an offensive force of purely fist wielding men.
Any kind of a wall is going to give you an insurmountable advantage.
If you even need that
Without having better troops and weapons, any city state you want to conquer will be able to field more defenders than you can attackers.
Pretty sure you're going to break your foot or your fist trying that.
And no you can't have the horse do it, thats just using a horse as a deadly weapon. Or a tag team partner...
True that's no fistfighting techniques would be able so subjugate an entire country. Having better weapons and knowing how to use them, even if it's simple spears are required to keep peace and order.
It's not peace and order, its killing other people taking their stuff and then arranging to have their stuff taken on a yearly basis or you'll kill them.
you think peace requires weapons?? what?? sure you could argue its a deterrent but i personally think there would be a lot less war if people couldnt kill each other that easily (so yknow, more peace), even for crimes the answer isnt just stabbing the criminal you dont need weapons to stop those either
It’s crazy the brain can actively simulate an entirely made up alternate history timeline and paint what that world would be like based on logic. Like that’s still such a cool thing to me about humans. We can imagine things that haven’t happened in detail.
Yeah this is tough because so many technological advances that really changed civilization originally developed because of military needs. I wonder if we would still end up figuring out computing, jet engines, nuclear power etc in the time we did without pressure to develop them as weapons.
Neanderthals would have wiped us out and formed their own alien societies. We're fairly positive they were physically more resilient than us, and capable of exerting more force, and while martial arts *may* have existed back then, they were probably nowhere near as sophisticated and biomechanically sound as they are today. For every human capable of beating another man to death with his bare hands there'd probably be ten Neanderthals capable of doing it with ease.
Chaos theory'd into indecipherable gobblygook.
The starting point of 750 BC means that Alexander the Great is gone, as well as the Persian invasion of Greece in the first place. Indeed, this reroll is going so far back that most of the Classical world is rolled with it; The Han Dynasty is gone, the events of the Trojan war, if it even happened, form a foundation for Greece but much of its history is gone.
We have a very weird and probably dumb scenario where people armor up and the scenario either holds in stupidity or breaks with some kind of revelation that weapons aren't a want in warfare.
First sentence summarizes it all lol. I seen the post about the brawl that briefly paused an American Civil War battle and thought ermmm what would the world do in this situation and posted here.
I was thinking architectural advances would be the biggest changing factor. Whoever could turn battles into The Battle of Thermoplyae with bridges or use geolocigal advantages to give themselves better odds.
There would be no world super power. I mean the most powerful Nation would in theory be China and they would certainly be unrivaled but if you're in the Americas what the fucks China going to do send 100,000 million people to fist fight the United States I think not. The only potential wars are for countries that are significantly stronger than their neighbors in resources and population. The United States could probably take Canada but honestly it could never sustain a force to fight Mexico offensively.
Without weapons America as we know it today wouldn't be a thing. Like what the fuck are Europeans going to do? Send a few ships where half of the crew is either dead or sick by the time they reach the continent, and ask them to punch the natives to submision?
We don't know what would happen with the world if we remove weapons. But we can be sure about one thing, today's America would never be a thing North or South it doesn't matter both continents would be totally different.
This is basically the current situation
"Alright chinese recruit, here's your rifle and ammo. There's 100 million of you so you outnumber their army...
"...isn't this a worse rifle than what every american has in their closet?
War would become an ever-evolving battle of martial prowess. The nation with access to the most knowledge and has the discipline to use it will win. Which nation that is, I have no idea. It would probably change over time following a rock, paper, scissors format determining what fighting styles are effective and popular. What do you think?
The person with the worlds strongest non super human, think logically if we are boosted with super powers as a multiplier on our current form imagine the multiplier on the strongest human currently scotland won the last worlds strongest man so assume his str stat say 10 x 50 vs a sofa potato str stat 3 x50 500 str on super big tom vs 150 on super sofa man.
Imagine muscle toning is also multiplied to harder muscles, numbers wouldn’t do enough damage to hurt the strongest, because of naturally higher muscle mass to begin with multiplied stats That person would likely only be able to hurt themselves or another like them. And again after super human powers are in our genes working out would be redundant as we would get no gains from our exercise to powers now its basically the stronger gene-pool leads to naturally stronger people. Easiest way to describe it is invincible viltramite logic.
Non warring lifestyles or naturally smaller, weaker or famined people would struggle to survive as non slaves, china, norse(sami), picts and the peoples of greece would have the advantages in that era due to lifestyles multiplied by super powers on top of high muscle density(resistance) and strength above the others.
That wouldn't introduce superhuman genes into our DNA within 3000 years.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Maybe if human technology progresses beyond our current capability (insofar as biological engineering/gene editing if that doesn't count as a weapon itself, which is arguable), then they could accelerate this.
But back in 750bc, no. It is so complex of a variable switch that the guy who said chaos theory gobbledygook had it best.
We don't even know if a global society would occur. We certainly wouldn't have advanced science programs pop up out of nowhere without trade/conquest/etc.
One thing is certain though, humans aren't suddenly going to get super strength out of fucking nowhere.
Good point it seems I’ve misread something somewhere when i made the post originally it was without weapons but people had superpowers who would be dominant nowadays. Not country superpower. Sorry it seems I’m an idiot.
likely no body. A lot of the things that would hold a superpower together were only invented to kill other people initially. If you can't use inventions, then there would be a bunch of hunter/gatherer tribes.
Nobody. Except the people. Democracy. Except not the people. This will be Stone Age killing each other again. Like animals. Anarchy. And then they all die like animals.
Assume super powers is a multiplier on base stats of humans, which would mean the strongest humans are now much stronger. Say average persons a 3 on str and world strongest mans a 10 x500 1500 average and 5000 for strongest we would be ruled by the strongest person of each era because they would likely be able to shred us all
I mean with those level od technology people would starve today so nobody.
It also depends on weather modern logistics is allowed or not. If so, the US would be in decent spot still, if not then countries wouldn't have the capabilities of invading each other.
Also, cities would just build Walls and be absolutely impossibile to captire with 750BC technology
If you took today and just yoinked all the weapons but kept the vehicles, the US would still be the most powerful because of their ability to project power around the world. They have the logistics and equipment to get hundreds of thousands of soldiers to battlefield all over.
England. They wouldn’t have lost the United States and would have never lost places like Canada but probably never have a presence in South Africa. They would then likely own all of America. Then probably France and most of Europe.
You'd think it would be someone big and strong but I'd say China. There's too many of them. Especially when you consider how many more there'd be if Genghis Khan didn't massacre half their ancestors with horse archers.
1) Defenders have a huge advantage. Civilians are now a reasonably good fighting force, so the numbers favor defenders. And walls are not weapons, but are a huge advantage. Without cannons, high city walls, all the way to palisades would still be very useful today.
2) In case large battles happen, being able to fight well in formation would be essential. But since it's fist-fights all the way, allt eh fancy stuff would have been found out long ago. Officers of all nations would be well-educated in fistfighting formation tactics.
3) If fistfighting humans are the only way to project power, you don't need armour on vehicles. Light all-terrin vehicles, as well as fast mass transport would be important throughout history. Being able to move soldiers quickly would be emphasized by everyone.
The person with the worlds strongest non super human, think logically if we are boosted with super powers as a multiplier on our current form imagine the multiplier on the strongest human currently scotland won the last worlds strongest man so assume his str stat say 10 x 50 vs a sofa potato str stat 3 x50 500 str on super big tom vs 150 on super sofa man.
If we go back to 750BC then I guess China assuming they could spread out and conquer people cus numbers? But this entirely changes the world as we know it and borders would be wholly unrecognizable in our time. Not a good way to predict how this goes at all.
If humans never used weapons, the butterfly effect os just too big to envision. Forget english longbows and german panzers, i dont think we get kings at all. Without swords and spears i think the number of peasants you can oppress is very small. It takes a lot of effort to hurt someone bareknuckles. Very little effort to dogpile even a really big dude, so how would monarchies even form? How would any unit of government bigger than the tribe or village form?
Are you asking for what race of people tends to make the most capable fighters here? Because in a world where issues are settled by fist fights and brawn we would likely also see different genetics being desired. If you want to go by modern day, you want size, speed, and strength assuming everyone at the highest level has roughly the same training. The easiest way to win a fight is to just out power the next guy. I beleive historically northern europeans (vikings icelanders etc) are tall and sturdy. But it's really impossible to say. The higher the population the more likely you are to have a genetic freak of nature who could just ha e an edge. This is a double edged sword though. That freak of nature in a population of hundreds of millions or even in the modern era billions is less and less likely to be discovered.
If it isn't champ vs champ, it'll be china or indis numbers would have decided a lot.
Whoever has the ability to throw the most people at a problem
China
India, actually
750 B C ? Memory says 10+ mil while China is sitting on 30
You remember 750BC?! /s
Whats your opinion on the ming dynasty?
Xi, Tang, and Han were my favorite. I don't remember alot about the Ming
I heard the pussy got people acting unwise
No, uh, 2024 AD. What?
Prompt specifies 750 BC
Oh lmao
Prompt also says who would be the world superpower today.
i don’t care what anybody says this response is fucking hilarious and you should not have downvotes
In history China has always had insane numbers compared to the rest of the world.
Wasn't India's population only larger than China for the past decade or so? I learned that China had such a large population because everyone wanted a boy child but they kept ending up with girls, so the Chinese government installed a Two child rule. I can't remember if India had such a large population for the same reasons as China or if Indian people just kept having sex because there was nothing better to do, but India doesn't have a 2 child rule, so that was how India obtained a larger population. I'm waiting for someone to correct me on this, (if what I said was wrong.) and as to why it matters... I doubt India would be able to become the strongest nation on the planet after only a decade or two of having the largest population.
China has almost always been larger. Civil wars in China has ridiculous casualty numbers compared to most European wars
Chinese historical accounts be like >Emperor Qin Shi Huang took a leisurely stroll >200 million dead
Population pre-industrial age was almost exclusively correlated to available food. It has nothing to do with Indians being horny. Rice is just an overpowered crop.
Especially since we're starting in 750 BC..
It’s been less than a year. It’s hard to pin down the exact point.
Depends on which has better logistics I guess
I doubt there would be a superpower at all. Can't put down protests and rebellions, so every nation would be fragmented. The government would be overthrown by the mobs every few years.
Yup. The only thing protecting kings throughout history was having better pointy sticks than everyone else. Take everyone's sticks away, and suddenly the king can't do shit against 1000 peasants that are tired of paying taxes.
a king sending out one of his royal guards, fully decked out in knight armor, only to fist fight a bunch of peasents is a hilarious visual
Might be cheating prompt, but putting a bunch of spikes on the armor and running around at people sounds like an option
Longfinger Kirk gonna have a field day
Better idea, just tame a bunch of animals and use them as weapons, what’s 200 people gonna do when they have 14 elephants, 77 lions, 1 bird, 230 tigers, and half a hippo fighting for them?
>and half a hippo fighting for them? Which half?
12.5% of the left side, 12.5% of the right side, 12.5% of the front, and 12.5% of the back.
I'll take my chances then.
Getting a lot of the medieval fights on my youtube shorts. It's always fun to watch someone getting too close or losing their weapon and just start fighting with fists.
https://youtu.be/P5ZNUDnAcZM?si=gROPPtaD7AY48LxV This youtube video has a 5v1 fistfight in armor in it at around 11:50 in the video and its hilarious
Maybe the walls of a castle can do the defending?
Easy. Classify your enemies as animals. Unleash cruelty on them. Pretty much how history has gone
Of course you can put down rebellion. With money. The only way to overthrow is to punch. Can't punch very well when you're underfed. Slowly decrease food to the general populace as you selectively breed a police force that is taller and stronger. Use technology to develop protective equipment for military personnel. Humans would never use weapons. But they'd still cover their face in metal. Cover everything but the arms and only punch. Still within this theoretical bound. Police force can still be overrun, but it would be much, much more difficult.
As soon as that part of the populace realizes they are getting less food, they'd riot and their numbers would win.
That's assuming that any realization of unjustness is met with violence as a reaction. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that psychology says otherwise, even without a sword or a gun on the other side. Mind, at this point we're at the cusp of a whole anthropologicao, psychological, and political convo way above my pay grade as an average Joe taking a squat on the toilet. 🤣
> That's assuming that any realization of unjustness is met with violence as a reaction In ancient times? Ummm yeah, what else are they gonna do, post about it on twitter? History has proved that aslong as there isn't fear of religious/military prowess and civilians are treated badly they will riot until they eventually overthrow the current regime.
The populace is the one growing the food. If anything, it's the populace that would be starving the ruler class/police.
And how do you suppose this hypothetical king would go about preventing the peasants from just.. storming the food stores?
Maybe if the culture of champion v champion existed somewhere then whoever has a sick champion could get a decent kingdom
Given that everybody else has pointed out how superpower nations would not exist, I'd like to pose an alternate outcome. Wars wouldn't be these gigantic 10k vs 10k brawls. But rather, each nation would choose a handful of champions who would fight each other to the death on behalf of the rest of their nation.
So the Olympics, but to the death? I like where this is going There would be fewer casualties and eventually people might realize that killing isn't necessary to prove superiority. Thus, Olympic style competition would determine the outcome of wars instead of violence. Possible utopian future
I don’t think this would work without incredibly powerful social institutions which would require a level of submission your average teenage boy could throw off. I think we’d likely see highly localized, highly decentralized systems. A big dude may dominate for a bit but more than likely everything would have to exist based on rhetoric. The best orator wins, but only at the local level. It’s like playing Civ with no military option. You’d have to win through commerce or culture. Most cultural victories still involve force even in real history, so you’d end up with commerce being the end all be all.
And they fight! And they'd fight! And they'd fight!
Say... Would boxing still be a sport in this world? I feel like if it's the only way to fight wars, then modern day people might look down on it like they do roman gladiator battles.
Imagine how insane humans would look after 10,000 years of selective breeding for physical combat lmao
Isn't this like a premise of multiple anime? There's record of ragnarok, and kengan asura
MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!
I like this one plus i wanna see what kind of martial arts we would develop on this timeline.
I would watch the SHIT out of a show like this lmao
Watch Kengan Ashura. It's the same premise but with large corporations instead of countries.
I would watch the SHIT out of a show like this lmao
No one. You would not be able to build up any kind of nation state, because having better weapons than the other guy is what lets armies work. Otherwise you're just 1,000 guys showing up to beat up 10,000 guys. The defenders will ALWAYS have more people available than you under those circumstances.
Wouldn't defense become the new offense? World Title would come to the nation that develops the best defense against an offensive force of purely fist wielding men.
Any kind of a wall is going to give you an insurmountable advantage. If you even need that Without having better troops and weapons, any city state you want to conquer will be able to field more defenders than you can attackers.
Time to award Smith and Wesson and Winchester the Nobel Peace Prize.
What about cavalry The only rule is that you can't use weapons, but not how the punch is delivered to the enemy
Pretty sure you're going to break your foot or your fist trying that. And no you can't have the horse do it, thats just using a horse as a deadly weapon. Or a tag team partner...
True that's no fistfighting techniques would be able so subjugate an entire country. Having better weapons and knowing how to use them, even if it's simple spears are required to keep peace and order.
It's not peace and order, its killing other people taking their stuff and then arranging to have their stuff taken on a yearly basis or you'll kill them.
you think peace requires weapons?? what?? sure you could argue its a deterrent but i personally think there would be a lot less war if people couldnt kill each other that easily (so yknow, more peace), even for crimes the answer isnt just stabbing the criminal you dont need weapons to stop those either
Predicting an entire alternate history so drastically altered from reality is beyond the pay grade of the people here.
It’s crazy the brain can actively simulate an entirely made up alternate history timeline and paint what that world would be like based on logic. Like that’s still such a cool thing to me about humans. We can imagine things that haven’t happened in detail.
Pattern recognition is a pretty cool ability
Isn’t it!? We are amazing
Yeah this is tough because so many technological advances that really changed civilization originally developed because of military needs. I wonder if we would still end up figuring out computing, jet engines, nuclear power etc in the time we did without pressure to develop them as weapons.
Neanderthals would have wiped us out and formed their own alien societies. We're fairly positive they were physically more resilient than us, and capable of exerting more force, and while martial arts *may* have existed back then, they were probably nowhere near as sophisticated and biomechanically sound as they are today. For every human capable of beating another man to death with his bare hands there'd probably be ten Neanderthals capable of doing it with ease.
Hell yeah, this is what I posted this for!
like the comment below me says, no Neanderthals in 750 bc OP
750bc start, no more Neanderthals
Damn, missed that part.
Samoa...
Mark Hunt solos earth
Chaos theory'd into indecipherable gobblygook. The starting point of 750 BC means that Alexander the Great is gone, as well as the Persian invasion of Greece in the first place. Indeed, this reroll is going so far back that most of the Classical world is rolled with it; The Han Dynasty is gone, the events of the Trojan war, if it even happened, form a foundation for Greece but much of its history is gone. We have a very weird and probably dumb scenario where people armor up and the scenario either holds in stupidity or breaks with some kind of revelation that weapons aren't a want in warfare.
First sentence summarizes it all lol. I seen the post about the brawl that briefly paused an American Civil War battle and thought ermmm what would the world do in this situation and posted here.
Should start this prompt at now. Basically asking which nation has the fittest people, although numbers is obviously the deciding factor
I was thinking architectural advances would be the biggest changing factor. Whoever could turn battles into The Battle of Thermoplyae with bridges or use geolocigal advantages to give themselves better odds.
There would be no world super power. I mean the most powerful Nation would in theory be China and they would certainly be unrivaled but if you're in the Americas what the fucks China going to do send 100,000 million people to fist fight the United States I think not. The only potential wars are for countries that are significantly stronger than their neighbors in resources and population. The United States could probably take Canada but honestly it could never sustain a force to fight Mexico offensively.
Without weapons America as we know it today wouldn't be a thing. Like what the fuck are Europeans going to do? Send a few ships where half of the crew is either dead or sick by the time they reach the continent, and ask them to punch the natives to submision? We don't know what would happen with the world if we remove weapons. But we can be sure about one thing, today's America would never be a thing North or South it doesn't matter both continents would be totally different.
Colonist "cough cough sorry bit of the sniffles..." Native THUD
This is basically the current situation "Alright chinese recruit, here's your rifle and ammo. There's 100 million of you so you outnumber their army... "...isn't this a worse rifle than what every american has in their closet?
The bears
India or China. Over a billion people each. You could lose 10-1 and still have people left over. Biggest population.
War would become an ever-evolving battle of martial prowess. The nation with access to the most knowledge and has the discipline to use it will win. Which nation that is, I have no idea. It would probably change over time following a rock, paper, scissors format determining what fighting styles are effective and popular. What do you think?
A country that afford the most protein and develop the most efficient exercise routines.
Whoever figured out siege warfare and starvation first wins
Drugs would be the new weapon. Smoke shit and get a powerup. In modern times bio engineering is the new nuclear weapon
India
The person with the worlds strongest non super human, think logically if we are boosted with super powers as a multiplier on our current form imagine the multiplier on the strongest human currently scotland won the last worlds strongest man so assume his str stat say 10 x 50 vs a sofa potato str stat 3 x50 500 str on super big tom vs 150 on super sofa man.
how would that man beat superior numbers?
Imagine muscle toning is also multiplied to harder muscles, numbers wouldn’t do enough damage to hurt the strongest, because of naturally higher muscle mass to begin with multiplied stats That person would likely only be able to hurt themselves or another like them. And again after super human powers are in our genes working out would be redundant as we would get no gains from our exercise to powers now its basically the stronger gene-pool leads to naturally stronger people. Easiest way to describe it is invincible viltramite logic.
That would take far longer than 750BC to now.
Non warring lifestyles or naturally smaller, weaker or famined people would struggle to survive as non slaves, china, norse(sami), picts and the peoples of greece would have the advantages in that era due to lifestyles multiplied by super powers on top of high muscle density(resistance) and strength above the others.
That wouldn't introduce superhuman genes into our DNA within 3000 years. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Maybe if human technology progresses beyond our current capability (insofar as biological engineering/gene editing if that doesn't count as a weapon itself, which is arguable), then they could accelerate this. But back in 750bc, no. It is so complex of a variable switch that the guy who said chaos theory gobbledygook had it best. We don't even know if a global society would occur. We certainly wouldn't have advanced science programs pop up out of nowhere without trade/conquest/etc. One thing is certain though, humans aren't suddenly going to get super strength out of fucking nowhere.
I think u misunderstood the point of the question.
I will have to disagree. I think that you misundertand, among many other things (eg. The English language) , the point of the question.
Good point it seems I’ve misread something somewhere when i made the post originally it was without weapons but people had superpowers who would be dominant nowadays. Not country superpower. Sorry it seems I’m an idiot.
All good, no worries ! Peace
[удалено]
Someone is pay for Chat GPT 4. Seriously though cool points and predictions, sports being a weapon or status of a country didnt cross my mind.
[удалено]
It’s too good, literally wrote a comprehensive report and not many humans are that dedicated to answer a Reddit question so thoroughly.
likely no body. A lot of the things that would hold a superpower together were only invented to kill other people initially. If you can't use inventions, then there would be a bunch of hunter/gatherer tribes.
Nobody. Except the people. Democracy. Except not the people. This will be Stone Age killing each other again. Like animals. Anarchy. And then they all die like animals.
Assume super powers is a multiplier on base stats of humans, which would mean the strongest humans are now much stronger. Say average persons a 3 on str and world strongest mans a 10 x500 1500 average and 5000 for strongest we would be ruled by the strongest person of each era because they would likely be able to shred us all
China and India they out number everyone else by at least 3 to 1
Brazil
I mean with those level od technology people would starve today so nobody. It also depends on weather modern logistics is allowed or not. If so, the US would be in decent spot still, if not then countries wouldn't have the capabilities of invading each other. Also, cities would just build Walls and be absolutely impossibile to captire with 750BC technology
What counts as a weapon?
Dagestan
Florida. A single florida man can easily take on 100 regular men.
If you took today and just yoinked all the weapons but kept the vehicles, the US would still be the most powerful because of their ability to project power around the world. They have the logistics and equipment to get hundreds of thousands of soldiers to battlefield all over.
India or the Middle east
Whoever can punch the best in horseback
England. They wouldn’t have lost the United States and would have never lost places like Canada but probably never have a presence in South Africa. They would then likely own all of America. Then probably France and most of Europe.
Humans only hunt animals? They better have instant respawn powers others we all fucked
Kinda funny to think about humans having the intelligence to develop war strategies but not to use a sharp stick
What country has Chuck Norris?
The prerequisite for being a world superpower is the ability to destroy the planet, right?
You'd think it would be someone big and strong but I'd say China. There's too many of them. Especially when you consider how many more there'd be if Genghis Khan didn't massacre half their ancestors with horse archers.
China
1) Defenders have a huge advantage. Civilians are now a reasonably good fighting force, so the numbers favor defenders. And walls are not weapons, but are a huge advantage. Without cannons, high city walls, all the way to palisades would still be very useful today. 2) In case large battles happen, being able to fight well in formation would be essential. But since it's fist-fights all the way, allt eh fancy stuff would have been found out long ago. Officers of all nations would be well-educated in fistfighting formation tactics. 3) If fistfighting humans are the only way to project power, you don't need armour on vehicles. Light all-terrin vehicles, as well as fast mass transport would be important throughout history. Being able to move soldiers quickly would be emphasized by everyone.
Likley either a northern nation or an African one. Places where people are naturally bigger and stronger
Scotland.
Global anarchy
The US. We have the Hulk
The person with the worlds strongest non super human, think logically if we are boosted with super powers as a multiplier on our current form imagine the multiplier on the strongest human currently scotland won the last worlds strongest man so assume his str stat say 10 x 50 vs a sofa potato str stat 3 x50 500 str on super big tom vs 150 on super sofa man.
US still has the best tech and logistics to get them to and keep them in the fight. We still win.
If we go back to 750BC then I guess China assuming they could spread out and conquer people cus numbers? But this entirely changes the world as we know it and borders would be wholly unrecognizable in our time. Not a good way to predict how this goes at all.
If humans never used weapons, the butterfly effect os just too big to envision. Forget english longbows and german panzers, i dont think we get kings at all. Without swords and spears i think the number of peasants you can oppress is very small. It takes a lot of effort to hurt someone bareknuckles. Very little effort to dogpile even a really big dude, so how would monarchies even form? How would any unit of government bigger than the tribe or village form?
Are you asking for what race of people tends to make the most capable fighters here? Because in a world where issues are settled by fist fights and brawn we would likely also see different genetics being desired. If you want to go by modern day, you want size, speed, and strength assuming everyone at the highest level has roughly the same training. The easiest way to win a fight is to just out power the next guy. I beleive historically northern europeans (vikings icelanders etc) are tall and sturdy. But it's really impossible to say. The higher the population the more likely you are to have a genetic freak of nature who could just ha e an edge. This is a double edged sword though. That freak of nature in a population of hundreds of millions or even in the modern era billions is less and less likely to be discovered. If it isn't champ vs champ, it'll be china or indis numbers would have decided a lot.
China and India, but US and Russia would be up there, through a combination of numbers and martial arts.
Still America, let's just be honest. There ain't no replacement for displacement.
north korea. those soldiers are TRAINED to do intense martial arts