Three states that never had the biggest army on their continent, and outlasted the ones that did · Operator: Chenyjunny
한국어 (Korean) · All guides & articles
Grand strategy, whether in a history book or on a game board, tends to be told from the perspective of whoever is biggest. That framing quietly skips over a genuinely useful lesson: some of history's most durable political arrangements belonged to states that were never the largest power in their neighbourhood, and never tried to become it. Switzerland, Venice, and the Dutch Republic solved the problem of surviving among empires in three different ways, none of which involved out-growing the empires around them.
▶ Play Era of ConquestThe Swiss Confederacy's long-standing policy of armed neutrality was formally recognized and guaranteed by the great powers of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, but the reputation behind that recognition had been earned over centuries beforehand. Swiss pikemen and mercenary regiments had built a reputation across Europe as some of the most effective infantry available, hired out to fight in other powers' wars while the confederacy itself stayed out of them. The lesson worth isolating here is not that Switzerland was weak and got lucky — it is closer to the opposite. A neighbour who is expensive to fight and has made clear it isn't seeking anyone else's territory presents very little incentive for a larger power to bother attacking in the first place. Neutrality backed by real military credibility is a different, cheaper thing than neutrality that is simply hoped for, and Switzerland has not fought a foreign war since that 1815 recognition.
The Republic of Venice took a different route entirely, built around geography rather than reputation. Built on a cluster of islands in a lagoon, difficult to approach and easy to defend, Venice never needed to compete with the huge land armies its larger neighbours could field, because those armies could not easily reach it in the first place. What Venice built instead was a trading and naval power, projecting influence through commerce, a formidable fleet, and a long, flexible history of alliances and rivalries with both other Italian states and the Ottoman Empire — sometimes fighting the Ottomans, sometimes trading extensively with them, switching between the two as its interests required rather than committing permanently to either. That flexibility, sustained for roughly a thousand years of effective independence, ended only when Napoleon's forces brought the Republic down in 1797 — not through the kind of land invasion Venice had spent centuries making needlessly difficult, but at a point when the entire balance of power the Republic had spent that long operating within had itself changed beyond what any single city-state's geography could out-last.
Venice's naval strength itself came from an unusually early piece of industrial organization: the Venetian Arsenal, a state-run shipyard complex that standardized components and assembly to the point that it could turn out a fully equipped war galley in a remarkably short span when the Republic needed its fleet replenished quickly. It is one of the earliest documented examples of something resembling a production line, centuries before the term existed, and it let a city-state with a comparatively small population field and rapidly replace a navy that could contest control of the Adriatic and the eastern Mediterranean against much larger rivals. The lesson runs parallel to the one in the game's own economy: it is not raw population or territory that determines whether you can field the force you need, it is how efficiently what you already have converts into that force when the moment calls for it.
The Dutch Republic of the 17th century, small in territory and population compared to its rivals, built the era's dominant trading and financial network instead of its largest army — Amsterdam became a financial centre for the whole of Europe, and the Dutch East India Company, chartered in 1602, became one of the most powerful commercial enterprises in the world. When military threat did arrive, most dramatically during the French invasion of 1672 — a year still remembered in Dutch history as the Rampjaar, the "disaster year" — the Republic turned its own geography into a defence, deliberately breaching dikes to flood the countryside and create the Dutch Water Line, a barrier of controlled flooding that a conventional army could not simply march through. A state that had built its strength on trade and engineering rather than a standing army found, when it actually needed one, that the same water it had spent generations managing for prosperity could also be turned into a weapon on short notice.
None of these three states won by matching their neighbours army for army. Switzerland made itself not worth invading. Venice made itself hard to reach and useful to trade with instead. The Dutch Republic made its wealth and its geography do the work a standing army usually does. What they share is a refusal to accept that survival required becoming the largest power in the room — each found a specific asymmetry that let a comparatively small state impose a cost on aggression that was disproportionate to the state's own size.
Era of Conquest builds this exact asymmetry directly into its economy. The administrative efficiency penalty keeps any nation running at full production and income up to twelve provinces, with no penalty at all — meaning a small, well-developed nation is never structurally behind a larger one on a per-province basis, and is frequently ahead of an empire large enough to have crossed into reduced efficiency. And the game's diplomacy system adds the other half of the historical pattern directly: once a nation grows conspicuously larger than its neighbours, its neighbours' opinion of it begins falling and coalitions start to form — which is exactly why the delegation system's runner-up stance deliberately keeps a nation strong but visibly second, letting someone else absorb the hostility that comes with obvious size. Staying small on purpose is not a consolation prize in this game any more than it was for Switzerland, Venice, or the Dutch Republic — it is a legitimate strategy with its own specific advantages, available to anyone willing to play the size game differently rather than simply losing it.
It is worth being honest about where the analogy stops, too. None of these three states escaped the pressures of scale forever — Venice fell when the wider European balance of power shifted against every small republic at once, not just against it specifically. Staying small buys a different kind of game, not immunity from every possible outcome. The point is not that smaller is always safer; it is that a nation willing to invest in what makes it hard to profitably attack, rather than simply racing to out-grow the largest neighbour, is playing a strategy with real historical precedent behind it, not a fallback for players who couldn't manage anything bigger.
More articles: The Mongol paradox · Why coalitions formed against Napoleon · Rome's web of alliances
Guides: All guides & articles · Combat & economy · Delegation