Post by Germany - Ludwig Wilhelm on Apr 26, 2015 3:17:49 GMT -5
Disclaimer!
All of the following are my own headcanons, and I'm not completely faithful to them myself, so you don't have to pay any attention at all to this. But, I thought that I'd share it anyways in case anyone finds it to be a useful reference.
Point of This
It's actually really easy to figure out which of two nations is the strongest militarily or if they're equal enough that it's hard to say. There's websites that do this for you (though you have to take into account how things change between RL time and our thirty-years-later world war three scenario), but in most cases you don't even need that much if you simply know a nation's relationships and who they do and do not treat with utter contempt. (Except for nations like North Korea, who treat even their betters with contempt.)
What such things can't tell you is exactly how that might translate into Hetalia - if, for example, two nations got into a fistfight you could probably have a rough idea of the odds of each side winning, but why would they win? There is, after all, more to a fist fight than brute strength, just like there's more to a war than who has the most soldiers. So these are the headcanons I came up with to help me sort this out.
Remember! Just like in a fistfight, the nation with the strongest military doesn't necessarily win. Strategy, tactics, who's more used to the terrain, luck, and a whole host of other things too numerous to list play a part. Which isn't to say that Sealand has a chance at conquering America, but Canada could possibly do it if he wanted it more.
All of the following are my own headcanons, and I'm not completely faithful to them myself, so you don't have to pay any attention at all to this. But, I thought that I'd share it anyways in case anyone finds it to be a useful reference.
Point of This
It's actually really easy to figure out which of two nations is the strongest militarily or if they're equal enough that it's hard to say. There's websites that do this for you (though you have to take into account how things change between RL time and our thirty-years-later world war three scenario), but in most cases you don't even need that much if you simply know a nation's relationships and who they do and do not treat with utter contempt. (Except for nations like North Korea, who treat even their betters with contempt.)
What such things can't tell you is exactly how that might translate into Hetalia - if, for example, two nations got into a fistfight you could probably have a rough idea of the odds of each side winning, but why would they win? There is, after all, more to a fist fight than brute strength, just like there's more to a war than who has the most soldiers. So these are the headcanons I came up with to help me sort this out.
- Manpower = Stamina
Generally this would mean males of military age, but in a pinch nations are known to recruit/draft whatever they have available. A nation with a lot of people has a lot of people that could be killed, and yet they would still have more people. A nation without a lot of people couldn't handle many losses without giving up. Which means that manpower probably best translates into stamina - China probably keeps going like the Energizer Bunny no matter what you throw at him, while Liechtenstein probably can't run marathons.
Heavy Equipment = Brute Strength
By 'Heavy Equipment' I mean things like aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles, and any of the other big metal objects that make things go boom. To have a decent arsenal, a nation needs to put a great deal of time, effort, and money into it, and even when they have one they need to maintain it. And this is what they use to really put the hurt on another nation. Which means that heavy equipment probably best translates into a nation's strength - and Germany literally has big guns.
Technology = Fighting Skill/Speed
A nation may have a lot of people and a lot of heavy equipment, but if their heavy equipment is outdated and their people don't know how to use it, at best they can fumble around on the battlefield while their more adept enemy makes short work of them even if they're otherwise superior. Which means that being technologically advanced probably best equates to fighting prowess - Japan probably hits with precision strikes right where you're weakest like a karate master, while it would probably really help North Korea if you'd just hold still. Speaking of which...
Low Land Mass = Evasiveness
While being small only helps you so much against a nation who can do precision strikes, if their aim is at all in question, it's useful to be tiny. Similarly, how could anyone miss Russia (if they don't care where)? Which means that the land mass of a country probably best equates to their ability to dodge things (not that Russia won't catch your fist and break your arm instead of dodging you).
Remember! Just like in a fistfight, the nation with the strongest military doesn't necessarily win. Strategy, tactics, who's more used to the terrain, luck, and a whole host of other things too numerous to list play a part. Which isn't to say that Sealand has a chance at conquering America, but Canada could possibly do it if he wanted it more.