I did read the argument. It's not convincing. You deny you're arguing by definition then proceed to insert the word “expectation” while still arguing by definition. And you totally ignored historical examples I gave that contradict your very narrow theory, like Haiti beating the French or the Afghans beating the British. It's an absolute historical fact that weaker nations prevail against Great Powers quite often in history, yet aren't actually recognized as Great Powers themselves by the broader international community.

Nor does your excerpt below address my fundamental point that various legitimate conceptions exist for what constitutes a Great Power. The excerpt doesn't do anything to define a Great Power. It just takes your highly contrived definition and applies it to some arbitrary period in European history. What makes a Great Power is not a rigidly fixed idea, that's why we're having this conversation in the first place.