Empires, good or bad?

History, archaeology, historiography, peoples, and personalities of ancient Rome and the Mediterranean.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Empires?

Yay!
4
28%
Nay!
4
28%
It depends...
6
42%
 
Total votes : 14

Empires, good or bad?

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Apr 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Salvete!

Are empires necessarily good or bad?

Some think they are bound to become evil and greedy, while some others may think an empire is the best state structure (note: by an empire I don't only mean the Roman Empire, with a monarch; this can be a republic like the former USSR or a federal democracy like the US as well).

Valete,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:04 pm

Salvete,

I have voted "it depends", though with an inclination to "nay". The answers depends on the precise question : if you'd ask me if I'd rather want to live in a benevolent empire, bringing peace, respecting the freedom and promoting the welfare of its citizens (the ideal of the "Pax Romana"), than in a chaotic anarchy, in which "every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal" (Hobbes, Leviathan), then I prefer living in the empire. Historically : let me live in the reign of Augustus, rather than during the civil war at the end of the republic.

Then again, history has repeatedly shown the truthfulness of Lord Acton's adagium "all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely". Within only a few decades after all, Augustus' beneficent reign degraded into the megalomaniac madness that was the rule of Caligula, Nero et alii...

Without the victorious emergence of Augustus, I don't know if the Roman empire, as we have known it, would've survived. Then again, number of his succesors really made a mess of it, although it must be mentioned (I think I was Gibbon who brought this to my attention) how formidably the great structure which the Roman empire was could withstand the mismanagement of a few wicked emperors.

In the end though, I think the "decline and fall of the Roman empire" was more than partially caused by its emperors, or better, by the continuous succession of warlords on the imperial throne in "the calamitous third century" (to borrow Barbara Tuchman's expression describing the 14th), which helped (not caused !) to bring about the decline of the economy, the crumbling of the empire etc.

Valete,

Q. Pomponius Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Anonymous on Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:39 pm

Salvete!

I agree on the whole with Atticus. In principle I would be more inclined to support a republican system but I am very conscious of how corrupt these can become. A monarchical system on the other hand can be far preferable if the Emperor/ King/ Queen is a good one. The weakness of even the best monarchy is that you can never be quite sure what's coming next. I wonder how many people actually saw Caligula coming. On the other hand Republics seem to have an alarming tendency of turning into plutocracies. I think you can see this not only in the Late Roman Republic but also in many present day western democracies.

I must admit that I would define both the USSR (former) and the USA as republics rather than Empires but of course it is almost impossible to draw a clear line where one system ends and another begins. As a somewhat disgruntled subject of Her Britannic Majesty I am conscious that our constitutional monarchy has many republican features while there are any number of 'republics' around the world that are effectively run as private kingdoms by dictators, cliques and so forth.

One great strength of the Imperial system - especially in view of the current state of the world - might be that they are more likely to be multi-racial and as long as no one group is allowed to dominate to the exclusion of others they could perhaps provide an alternative to all the vicious and stupid racism we see around us.

Valete!

Brutus
Anonymous
 

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:24 pm

Salve Cai,

I must admit that I would define both the USSR (former) and the USA as republics rather than Empires but of course it is almost impossible to draw a clear line where one system ends and another begins.


Exactly. There are still people today who don't believe (or don't want it to be known) that a democratic republic can be an empire. I always politely refer such people to Thucydides' analysis of Athenian politics in the 5th century...

Vale,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:49 pm

Salvete,

On one hand, I think empires are inevitable. At any given point in history, there have been empires (i.e. large, imperialistic states). Some of them were overall good, others were mixed and some were downright bad.

However, in the long run, empires always cause harm. The only empire I can think of that was still beneficial to its citizens after a long time was the Roman Empire (perhaps one of the Chinese empires as well but I'm not at home in Asian history). Others didn't exist long enough and decayed, with dramatic consequences (the Hellenistic empire), or destroyed more than they built up (the Mongol empire, for example).

I don't hesitate to characterise the former USSR as a type of empire. Although it was a republic, it was a central state covering a large region (it was the largest state in the world) and bent on expanding its influence, borders and economy or doing one by doing the other. While this may sound offensive to some US citizens, I think the US is actually doing the same, especially with its current government. The agenda of the think tank behind the Bush administration is openly imperialist. This is fascinating and frightening at the same time.

Of course, this may all end up in another "ideal state" debate but I would be very, very hesitant to support the notion of an empire. A global confederation with equal rights, freedom, etc etc would be great. A global plutocracy would be horrible. Empires are a bit like dictatorships for me. If the right people are on the right places, wielding this tremendous power, the effects can be tremendously beneficial. But if the wrong people are in the wrong places, the effects are bad on a world-scale. It's ironic that we like to think that the power of the people has never been greater in the West, yet more power than ever is controlled by few people (Louis XIV may have been absolute, he didn't have the military potential to wipe out an entire nation with one button, so to speak).

Ranting over 8).

Valete,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:09 pm

While this may sound offensive to some US citizens, I think the US is actually doing the same, especially with its current government. The agenda of the think tank behind the Bush administration is openly imperialist. This is fascinating and frightening at the same time.


I'm afraid no other conclusion is left indeed. E.g. read the statement of principles of the Project for a New American Century, signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other political heavyweights. The word "hegemony" or "empire" never figures, but is omnipresent in its absence...

Vale,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:12 pm

Salvete

I have not yet voted in this poll. I will have to think about it more.

There has been some discussion in public that the US recognize it has become an empire, and thus that we need to consider what kind of empire we should be. The term "empire" has a very negative effect in the US, since we were founded by a revolution against an imerialist state. I agree that Cheney's group is blatantly and openly imperialistic, and Bush' supporters have openly spoken that we accept this role and throw our weight around. The war in Iraqi is only one example of where they think we should go. But I will remind list members that Bush was not exactly elected president, and he did NOT receive the majority vote in the election, and also that he is in a bit of trouble now over his abuse of power. As it stands today, if the election was held now, Bush probably would not be re-elected. We'll see what happens in November. Putting Bush out of office will not however change the fact that the US is now a form of empire. It will however determine whether the US wishes to be an imperialist state. It has been one for over sixty years, even if most Americans do not realize it. And now, one way or another, the US is having to face that fact. In general Americans wish to be beneficial empire, not an exploitative one, although it is hard to tell the difference between the two. The US is only a little over two hundred years old, still a child politically, often naive with its intent, and Iraq is not the first time the US has gotten itself in trouble due to its naivite. Rome too expanded into an empire without really realizing it was until after the fact. And Roman naivite also got it into trouble at times. What the US is, and what kind of an empire it will become, I think still has to be determined. Both the world and the US will have suffer through its growing pains as it tries to become a mature nation.

Valete optime
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Sun Apr 11, 2004 5:49 pm

Salvete Piscine et alii,

In general Americans wish to be beneficial empire, not an exploitative one, although it is hard to tell the difference between the two.


As Karl Popper's famous book "The Open Society and its Enemies" showed, the great problem in history is not the lack of goodwill of great states, religions, etc. but the fact that they tend to unilaterally press their view of what is 'universally beneficent' (as Bush believes the so called free market, which, in reality, is a deceitful fiction, is) on others, "for their own good".

In his National Security Council address of September 17th 2002, the US president said : "We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.".

Popper would've nodded "wrong". He believed that if you had a Utopian vision of how society should be, and if you got the occasion to put that idea into practice, you would inevitably inflict disaster, since, once your model would've been put into action, you would no longer see any reason to change it for the least, or even to accept criticism on it. This is, e.g. the tragical thing that happened to the Soviet Union, which developed from a utopian daydream into a totalitarian nightmare.

Thus, Popper believed that the power of any government should be kept in check by reflective universities, potent unions, a truly critical press, independent (!) lobby groups etc. He also suggests that instead of trying to maximize the prosperity of the people, which is ultimately the realisation of only one specific view of prosperity (as for Bush a politically and morally conservative but economically liberal view), a good government (or perhaps even a beneficent empire, although I doubt Popper would've been sympathetic to that) should try to minimize the unhappy circumstances of the destitute, without forcing them to develop in a preconceived way.

Vale,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Aulus Dionysius Mencius on Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:20 am

Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:
However, in the long run, empires always cause harm. The only empire I can think of that was still beneficial to its citizens after a long time was the Roman Empire (perhaps one of the Chinese empires as well but I'm not at home in Asian history). Others didn't exist long enough and decayed, with dramatic consequences (the Hellenistic empire), or destroyed more than they built up (the Mongol empire, for example).



Not surprisingly, I have some comments on Asian history and the Mongol Empire.

Firtstly, the Chinese. It is hard, due to dynastic differences in philosophy, to give an overall opinion when it comes to this topic. As an example, I would like to give the first unification of China under Qin shi huangdi ( 221BCE).

Before that we had the Warring states period, evidently a very tumultuous stage in Chinese history. So unification is a blessing on that account. But with a dynastic change comes a change in ideology. Needs to, because otherwise the former ruling house would have stayed in the saddle, had it had a good ideology, nonne? Confucianism, the way of the ancients, was no longer considered adapteable to the current situation. Qhin shi huangdi followed Legalism. With it, he brought unification in measurements, weight and money. And the people were held in check with strict laws. And whether this is good or bad is the question. Overall, it had its strong points. The penal code had a one-on-one penalty for each crime, whereas in the past, social status was taken into account. So here, everybody knew what they were doing, and knew what to expect when they commited a crime. Everybody was equal. Possible downside, ofcourse, is that some people see this as a very harsh system, with hands being chopped off for theft, bannishing people (a penalty worse than death!), etc...

Now the Mogols. I have read a great deal about them lately in view of my thesis. And Draco's point has to be commented upon.

We have to consider that the Mongols are a pastoral nomadic culture to begin with. Thus stating to me that the mongols are just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages, is not good enough. Fact is, that due to their steppe environment and ditto conditions, they were always in danger of being raided by another tribe, of losing their pastures. So it is no small wonder that they were well organised, both in military and society.

The Mongol expansion, then. I firmly believe that it came to be out of need, and not out of bloodthirst. A nomadic people always depends on a sendentary one for certain products. Sources suggest that most of the Ghengisid expansion came to be after a refusal of friendly trading relations. And if you cannot buy what you so desperately need, you take it or risk starvation. Simple as that.

Now then, to return to Draco's point, was it as horribble as most people think? A difficult nut to crack, but I will try, nonetheless.

The mongols in China / Yuan dynasty (1279-1366)

Conquering this graet neighbour, it had always been the wet dream of any leader of a steppe confederation. When the Mongols did it, there were a lot of advantages for the people. Freedom of religion is one thing. The mongols, as a non-chinese dynasty, promoted buddhism, nestorianism and Islam. They understood that to rule such a great empire, with so many different races, they had to be tolerant.

Overall, they promoted trade in China.
The Chinese ruling class previously had gone to great lenght not to give rise to the merchants as a social class. Why? Because the rulers did not depen on them on them, but on the farmers. And if you give them permission to trade a great deal, they will become wealthy, and wealth always generates political power, and thus a threat to the confucian ruling class. This is also the main reason why state monopolies were insituted.
My view of contemporary China, that I will not disscuss here...

And so, they promoted trade to counter confucianism and for the good of their subjects.

Then, I would like to consider Russia, or Muscovy at that stage.

I am the first to admit that loss of life is great in any invasion. But one must also take into account that figures of victims always come to us by means of chronicles, written by the loosing party, and that therefore, figures are likely to be exaggerated.

Mongol interst in Russia (began 1237-1240) concerned the trade routes, mainly. The routes to the Black and Caspian Sea, and further to the West. It has been pointed out that the Pax Mogolia was an important factor in the development of Muscovy.
Mongol influence on military, civil administration ( dual civil-military admin) from China and the Dar- al Islam through the Qipchaq Khanate.

Beyond doubt, the initial loss of life must have been substantial, but the long-term economic devastation is exaggerated surely. There was a recovery in trade due to the Mongols, and a booming economy early in the 14th century. Mongol conquest opened up Russia for influences from China and Islam, influences that it would not have known otherwise...

So, was the Mongolian conquest really such a bad thing? Personally, I think not.

Some reading material on the Muscovy part, maybe:

Ostrowsky D., Muscovy and the Mongols. Cross-cultural influences on the steppe frontier, 1304-1589, 1998, Cambridge University Press

Sorry to have been bothering you all with such a lenghty post :wink:
Last edited by Aulus Dionysius Mencius on Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
Praefectus Belgicae, Rector of ColMil et Senator
User avatar
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
V. Cornicen
V. Cornicen
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: Ganda, Belgica

Postby Curio Agelastus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:56 am

Salvete,

I have little to offer on the subject of empires, given the expertise that others have given. But I must make one point: "Are empires necessarily good or bad?" It seems to me this question is both inexact and somewhat misleading.

By what criteria would you judge good and bad? Judging such a question by purely ethical criteria leads to several paradoxes brought about by the advantage of hindsight. Equally of course it suffers from complete subjectivity.

The same applies to any attempt to judge it by the amount of "good" or "bad" that an empire brought its subjects - complete subjectivity. Would you then judge it only by limited criteria? For instance the administrative efficiency with which its central government function? Or the economic benefits their occupation had on the occupied? The technological advances they brought to their provinces? All these are more precise but still flawed as a way of determining the answer to the question.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Aulus Dionysius Mencius on Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:06 am

Marce,

I can see where you are getting at, and I agree to some extent. But hindsight is, in my view, what this collegium or history in general is all about.

Who are we to judge past state organisation, let alone their legitmacy for the people who lived in that organisation? We base ourselves on sources, sources that we often cannot check, because we can not know how it was for those who are mentioned in them. We use facts and interpret them to our best ability. And yes, with it comes subjectivity.

But is that such a bad thing? Without personal opinions being trown in, every field of research might quickly become dogmatic, don't you agree? And then what?
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
Praefectus Belgicae, Rector of ColMil et Senator
User avatar
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
V. Cornicen
V. Cornicen
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: Ganda, Belgica

Postby Curio Agelastus on Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:20 pm

Salve Aule,

True, sources are unverifiable because of the nature of history. But my point isn't that the sources are unverifiable. My point is that applying the almost-philosophical point of "good and bad" to the discipline of history is at best difficult. We can judge administrative efficiency or other such aspects of an empire, but judging whether overall it was good or bad is going to vary from person to person, region to region and even nation to nation. To try and make this clear, let me ask this: what makes an empire good? What makes it bad? If you can come up with a logical answer to this that the majority of people will agree with, then I'll accept that this question is possible to discuss logically. At the moment, however, I remember somewhat sceptical. :?

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:48 am

To try and make this clear, let me ask this: what makes an empire good? What makes it bad?


I assume that a "good" empire would be described by most people in our culture today (exluding the bunch of fundamentalist Islamists, Bible Belt fundies etc. who want to mold the world according to their image and turn it into a Civitas Dei of some sort) as containing the following elements :

a) one that maintains peace, both internally (not only political peace, but also social, cultural...) and externally
b) that actively promotes the welfare of all of its citizens, not just the enrichment of a privileged class of 'imperials'.
c) and that respects human rights as defined in the universal declaration of human rights in 1948.

Vale,

Q. Pomponius Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Aulus Dionysius Mencius on Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:00 am

Salvete iterum, mi Marce et Attice

I agree that this is not an easy question... What makes an empire good or bad...

At first glance, I'd say the prosperity and welbeing of the people. But then again, one might counter by stating how one can assert this.
Because, like Atticus has pointed out, the welfare of the upper class might mean exploitation of their subjects, etc.
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
Praefectus Belgicae, Rector of ColMil et Senator
User avatar
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
V. Cornicen
V. Cornicen
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: Ganda, Belgica

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:46 am

Salvete,

Because, like Atticus has pointed out, the welfare of the upper class might mean exploitation of their subjects, etc.


Perhaps a 'questioning', rather personal definition of what a good empire is would be this : the kind of empire in which you believe you would get the chances to lead a happy and fulfilling life, even in the worst of personal circumstances.

Valete,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:22 pm

Aren't we forgetting "respect for the ecosystem?". Empires tend to imbalance natural ecosystems. The largest states on the earth, for instance, are also the largest sources of pollution.

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Curio Agelastus on Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:03 am

Salvete omnes,

Exactly! Exactly! 8) All the points you make are good ones. Now name me a single empire that fulfills all these functions. :P

Asking impossible questions in the futile hope of getting someone to agree with him is...
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:09 pm

Aha, there's indeed the big problem when philosophizing. Talking about ideals is usually not very difficult, but giving examples of them unfortunately is ! :roll:

Perhaps a new way of putting philosophical ideas to a test : try to imagine your lofty ideas being universally put to practice in real life. If you burst into laughter (or tears), or if you begin to frown as if you were watching a clumsy, implausible stage play, put the aforementioned ideas in a big box and throw them into the river Tiber :wink:

Valete,

Q. Pomponius Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:58 pm

Marcus Scribonius Curio wrote:Exactly! Exactly! 8) All the points you make are good ones. Now name me a single empire that fulfills all these functions. :P


None. Not even the OP 8).

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:29 pm

Salvete

I don't see anything that has been said that can be distinguished as characteristic of an empire from any country. For example, Popper's ideas would apply in any country, although he neglects some of the other very important institutions. For example in Iraq today it is not the universities, press or lobbying groups that is driving political action but the nation's religious institutions. And Atticus' comments on a "happy and fulfilling life" also applies with any country or political system. So what is an empire?

Valete
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Next

Return to Collegium Historicum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests