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.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?
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.Their isolation from neighbouring countries by water made them prone to get in touch with other nations in an aggressive way.
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.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.
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).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.
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.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.
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.Roman and Greek empires all were land-based to a substantial degree .