Hyperpower

The term "hyperpower" emerged in the late 20th century to describe a nation or state with a dominant position characterized by an unparalleled ability to exert influence on a global scale.

The origins of the term are often attributed to the French philosopher Hubert Vedrine, who served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs under French President Jacques Chirac from 1997 to 2002.

In a speech in 1999, Vedrine used the French term "hyperpuissance" to refer to the United States' unprecedented global clout and power projection capabilities after the end of the Cold War. He argued that the U.S. had become a "hyper-power" that dominated the world across virtually every domain - economically, militarily, technologically, diplomatically, and culturally.

The concept highlighted the perception that the U.S. had achieved a level of preeminence and lack of counterweights unseen in modern history after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This unrivaled status allowed it to act largely unilaterally on the world stage.

While the term generated some controversy and debate, it gained traction in foreign policy circles to capture the unique concentration of hard and soft power resources possessed by the United States in the post-Cold War unipolar moment of the late 20th century.

There are also claims that the Mongol Empire, British Empire and Roman Empire were hyperpowers, However, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire, and the Roman Empire were not considered "hyperpowers" for several reasons:

Lack of modern military technology and power projection: These historical empires, though formidable for their times, did not possess the advanced military technology, nuclear weapons, or global power projection capabilities that define a modern "hyperpower" status. Their militaries were limited by the technological constraints of their eras.
Geographic limitations: While vast, these empires were largely confined to contiguous land areas and their ability to exert influence was limited by the realities of pre-modern transportation and communication. A "hyperpower" exercises influence across the entire globe simultaneously.
Economic dominance constrained: Their economic dominance, while substantial regionally, did not approach the level of systematized global economic hegemony that could be exerted by a modern "hyperpower" given today's globalization and integrated world markets.
Soft power limitations: These ancient empires could not leverage modern tools of soft power like technological superiority, cultural exports, or global media/communications to shape attitudes and preferences worldwide as a "hyperpower" can.
Timeframe considerations: The concept of a "hyperpower" arose in the late 20th century in reference to the United States' unprecedented consolidation of power after the Cold War ended. It reflected a new modern reality ungoverned by the limitations that historical empires faced.

So while they were immensely powerful entities that controlled great swaths of territory and resources in their eras, they lacked the across-the-board concentration of economic, military, political and social influence on a global scale that defines a "hyperpower" in the modern context the term was intended.

It is also worth mentioning The Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815 after the Napoleonic Wars was a key reason why Britain did not achieve true "hyperpower" status, despite being the preeminent great power of the 19th century.

At the Congress of Vienna, the major European powers like Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria worked together to establish a new balance of power and redraw the map of Europe. This prevented any one nation, including Britain, from dominating the European continent unchecked.

Specifically, some of the factors that constrained British dominance after 1815 included:

Restoration of France as a major power, balancing British influence.
Growth of Russian power in Eastern Europe, curtailing Britain's sphere.
Revival of Prussia and Austria as significant central European forces.
Establishment of the Concert of Europe system of consensus diplomacy among the great powers.
British reluctance to maintain large standing armies on the continent.

So while Britain possessed the largest empire, navy and increasingly powerful economy in the 1800s, it faced counterweights on the European continent that prevented it from projecting overwhelming dominance in the way a 20th century "hyperpower" could globally.

References

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/05/news/to-paris-us-looks-like-a-hyperpower.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_V%C3%A9drine https://historicophiles.com/2023/05/18/how-did-the-us-become-a-hyperpower-during-the-1990s/ Schroeder, P. W. (1989). The Nineteenth Century System: Balance of Power or Political Equilibrium? Review of International Studies, 15(2), 135–153. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097176