This is a discussion on The history of empires within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; It's a remarkable feature of history that empires are born. Greeks, Romans, French, Spanish, British, Russian, German and American. Not ...
It's a remarkable feature of history that empires are born. Greeks, Romans, French, Spanish, British, Russian, German and American. Not to mention the empires that developed in the Asian atmosphere of influence.
How or why does that happen? What are the common trademarks of these empires?
It's a remarkable feature of history that empires are born. Greeks, Romans, French, Spanish, British, Russian, German and American. Not to mention the empires that developed in the Asian atmosphere of influence.
How or why does that happen? What are the common trademarks of these empires?
For instance: I'm interested in opinions on the geographic constraints put on the mentioned civilisations. It's obvious to me how many of these empires are developed on island territories. Their isolation from neighbouring countries by water made them prone to get in touch with other nations in an aggressive way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking conscious policy here. Societies should first of all be analysed from a darwinian point of view: a population's psychology is shaped by the landscape it lives in.
Their isolation from neighbouring countries by water made them prone to get in touch with other nations in an aggressive way.
The German aspirations to Empire-building are the prime example why this argument falls apart rather easily. The Russian Empire is another one. The French, Roman and Greek empires all were land-based to a substantial degree and did not suffer geographical isolation based on an island-concept. Countless Asian empires fall in the same category.
Quote:
Societies should first of all be analysed from a darwinian point of view: a population's psychology is shaped by the landscape it lives in.
Also questionable. Why should one want to apply a theory, such as Darwins theory of evolution, to an example, such as any form of Human society, where its prime factors do not apply? Darwin would be the first one to point out, that his observations do not apply to human society and that anything along those lines is rubbish from a scientific point of view.
________________ "It wasn't an invasion, merely an advance without consent through territory that technically didn't belong to us."
It seems to me that the interesting thing about empires is that they are the Rule rather that the exception. Multinational multilingual empires seem to be more common throughout human history rather than the the homogeneous nation states most people live in.
Perhaps someone can come up with a theory for that.
It is possible to come up with some similarities and common traits that different empires shared, but each is so different that it is impossible to have a concrete theory or formula
to describe empire building, managing and history that cannot be picked apart by other opinions. Each empire differs in the way they came to be, ruled themselfs and dissolved.
There is no formula to describe the rise, apex and fall of empires throughout history.
Going back thousands of years and examining each empire all the way to the present day would probably show some similarities as to how most occured and especially how most collapsed from the inside out, or atleast how each was responsible for their own demise in
hindsight.
It is possible to come up with some similarities and common traits that different empires shared, but each is so different that it is impossible to have a concrete theory or formula
to describe empire building, managing and history that cannot be picked apart by other opinions. Each empire differs in the way they came to be, ruled themselfs and dissolved.
There is no formula to describe the rise, apex and fall of empires throughout history.
Going back thousands of years and examining each empire all the way to the present day would probably show some similarities as to how most occured and especially how most collapsed from the inside out, or atleast how each was responsible for their own demise in
hindsight.
I would hazard a guess that most empires arise by accident. Powerful nations by by a stroke of good fortune expand into a vaccum. Wheater that is political disorder, or technological inferiority, a powerful state will suddenly find the stage clear of other players. Sometimes this can last for many hundreds of years and the empire will survive even if fundementally I'll favored by location (the byzantine empire springs to mind).
Since empire has many benifits to it clients and once they have been around for long enough,
to there enemys as well, once it passes a certain critical threshold they tend to last a long time.
Look at the British Empire, its still hanging on in bits and pieces, the russian emipre written off time after time still manages to revive itself, dispite all predictions.
Iran is still an empire, dispite what it may call itself.
China, is and always has been an empire.
And the US security blanket is empire in all but name.
Even the EU is a short step from empire, an new diplomatic corps, battle groups, common currency and trade policy, common borders.
It is possible to come up with some similarities and common traits that different empires shared, but each is so different that it is impossible to have a concrete theory or formula
to describe empire building, managing and history that cannot be picked apart by other opinions.
Countless publications have been written on this topic. Obviously there is a great deal of interest in this, as it constitutes research fields of international relations such as the studies of balance of power and hegemony (the latter being the primary aspect of what constitutes empires in the first place). The fields of Political Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism were/are most concerned with these issues. Opinions vary, obviously, and will continue to do so as long as we can make up our individual mind about something.
For historical reasons the english-speaking scientific community has been most prolific in this field, authors such as Mearsheimer, Gilpin, Waltz, Kagan, Morgenthau, Keohane, Nye all come to my mind (in no particular order).
I dont want to kill of this discussion thread but anyone seriously interested in the issue better gets to a library and starts reading...
________________ "It wasn't an invasion, merely an advance without consent through territory that technically didn't belong to us."
the mauryan empire founded in 324 bc controlled one third of entire human population and 33% of world gdp
greater than any other
but it lasted only 150 years
Roman and Greek empires all were land-based to a substantial degree .
I say territorial isolation influences imperial aspirations tremendously. Mainly because it's based on the fact that countries share less borders with other countries. This shaped the character of their occupants. Italy and Greece are almost peninsulas, geographically.
Territorial isolation, by water or landscape features, makes a civilisation culturally egocentric. Rome, Greece, the USA, ... became great empires, but might have been subconsciously pushed by the urge to reach out to other cultures, in a direct rather than a natural way.
Last edited by hsl; November 16th, 2009 at 05:33 PM.
Intresting discussion,and if i could add my thoughts......
Money and Trade makes an Empire.And i mean true money like gold and silver,not fiat currency such as banknotes.
All the great leaders throughout history,have got rid of barter as trade,and bought in gold/silver as currency.Look at coins throughout history,they have the faces of Ceasar,Alexander the great,Napoleon ect.
The main downfall of Rome was when silver and nickle was placed in Gold coins to dilute the Value of the dollar.Soldiers were paid with Diluted coins........
I think that when we talk of Empires,Money plays a very big part of how a Empire will function or fail.
I thought i would add Money as a point to go with Trade to further add to the discussion of the History of Empires.
