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

Postby Curio Agelastus on Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:06 pm

Salvete omnes,

Draco: Lol, if you keep an eye on the OP mainlist you'll see that everyone is happy and blissful in the OP, so I don't know what you're talking about... **Curio keeps a straight face.**

Atticus: This is my point; ideals are of little use in history because the object of history is to keep analysis as objective as possible, thus rendering philosophical ideals somewhat difficult to include because of their inherently subjective nature.

Piscinus: I suppose there are two different terms that Empire can be used to mean. In terms of internal government, an empire is but rarely an empire without an Emperor/Empress, just as you can't have a duchy without a Duke/Duchess, and so forth. The more controversial point is that of defining an empire in external terms - I suppose the simplest way of doing so would be to suggest that an empire is a state with imperial occupation and/or control over provinces not of the ethnic origin of the country in question. For instance, a Germany that included Luxembourg could be plausibly considered not an empire but a state, because Luxembourg is ethnically German. However, a Germany that included (for instance) Milan would have certain imperial traits about it, because Milan is ethnically Italian. Hence it is still plausible to call Russia an empire, because vast parts of the south of Russia but west of the Urals are still primarily Mongolian in origin, although there are also Kalmuks and others there. This of course wouldn't apply to a confederation of states or a dual monarchy. Such is how I would interpret it, but it seems a very subjective point.

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 Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:42 pm

Salvete Curio et Pisce,

Well, my attempt at defining an empire would be something like...

... A state that is, compared to most other contemporary states and in general opinion, covering a vast space, centrally led or has a type of government which gives a lot of power to an individual (or a select group of individuals) and is at least dominantly expansionist in two of the following areas: economy, territory, culture (also covering ideology or religion).

Curio, I have a remark about your definition. Ethnicity is too much of a tangled web to be the sole indication whether or not a state is imperialist. Do I have a Belgian ethnicity? It's a bit irrelevant to me. And even if we should take ethnicity into account: for example, Nazi Germany in the 1930's was definitely an expansionist state: the annexation of Sudetenland, the Danzig corridor, the Anschluss with Austria and the constant nibbling on other territories to unify all Germans in one state was definitely considered an imperialist measure.

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 Curio Agelastus on Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:18 pm

Salve Draco,

I entirely agree with your point about Nazi Germany - I used Milan as an example because of it is completely uncontroversial. Using Sudeten would have been tricky because it's partly German and partly Czech. The same goes for its border territories with Poland and France, so I thought Milan would be nice and obviously un-German.

As for your definition of empires, I don't entirely agree. How can there be a cultural empire? There can be an empire that is cultural but not an empire that is called so because of it's cultural strength. For instance, the Renaissance state of Tuscany wouldn't be called an empire, but Florence was one of the great cultural cities of the age. Equally, a purely economic empire doesn't quite fit the bill. True, there were comercial empires, most notably The Portuguese and Dutch, but they were both entirely dependent on control of certain territories that were vital to their economic interests. I therefore maintain that territorial expansion beyond ethnic boundaries is the prime trait of an empire. Admittedly, an individual might be an ethnic mongrel, and many individuals are. (By mongrel I simply mean have blood from several different nations or ethnic group.) However, most regions are still ethnically definable.

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 Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:38 pm

Marcus Scribonius Curio wrote:As for your definition of empires, I don't entirely agree. How can there be a cultural empire? There can be an empire that is cultural but not an empire that is called so because of it's cultural strength. For instance, the Renaissance state of Tuscany wouldn't be called an empire, but Florence was one of the great cultural cities of the age. Equally, a purely economic empire doesn't quite fit the bill. True, there were comercial empires, most notably The Portuguese and Dutch, but they were both entirely dependent on control of certain territories that were vital to their economic interests. I therefore maintain that territorial expansion beyond ethnic boundaries is the prime trait of an empire. Admittedly, an individual might be an ethnic mongrel, and many individuals are. (By mongrel I simply mean have blood from several different nations or ethnic group.) However, most regions are still ethnically definable.


Well, that's why I said, at least TWO out of three following traits :).

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 Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:15 pm

Salve Curio

Then the US which has no one particular ethnic basis, and has expanded in the past, but only economically dominates the world, and some would say is trying to dominate the world culturally, can never become an empire. Well, that is comforting to me because I was beginning to wonder how we should consider ourselves.

Vive semper Res Publica Libera! Vale
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 Curio Agelastus on Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:10 am

Salvete Draco et Piscinus,

Draco, could you name a cultural and economic empire that did not have territorial possessions outside its ethnic group?

Piscinus, I suppose the U.S. would be the majority ethnic group, which off the top of my head I'd say Anglo-Saxon. But admittedly the U.S. is something of a special case, because it was formed long after the major ethnic groups had already become distinct.

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 Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:14 pm

Salve Curio,

I would say the US, because it has no single distinct ethnic group. The Anglo-Saxon roots are, by the way, a bit overblown. I heard that when the constitution was written, there was a debate over which language they should adopt. English won over German, but the majority was not overwhelming.

Imagine a German-speaking superpower across the Atlantic in WW2... things could have been very different... :roll:

But any other than the US, no, I can't really think of such an example right now. Most modern-day nations comprise more than one ethnic group anyway, even Vatican City 8).

Vale!
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 Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:31 pm

Salve Draco,

True, the US is something of a special case. But it was founded on Anglo-Saxon roots and the language is English, so I think if there has to be a defined root ethnicity, it's probably Anglo-Saxon.

Sure, all nations comprise of more than one ethnicity - but i'm talking territory that is predominantly an etnic minority. For instance, London has plenty of different ethnic minorities, but was, at least last time I heard, predominantly English ethnically.

Ok so maybe my definition may need some fine-tuning, but I haven't seen any other perfect definitions of an empire yet. 8)

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 Horatius Piscinus on Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:57 pm

Salvete

Trying to define an empire, I think I would begin with economic relations. An empire is in the business of acquiring, consuming raw materials and luxury goods from distant lands, and in acquiring control over those regions that produce them. You do not have to militarily take possession of other places in order to control them. Holland did rather well with its entrports and contol of key sealanes to create an empire, until it lost the most important sealane. England empire was created out of its control of the sea, and only later expanded that into taking possession of distant territories. The US does not take actual possession of foreign territories (generally) but maintains effective control over foreign lands through economic and political bullying, covert operations and the threat of military intervention. Just ask the Nicaraguans about how effective that is in controlling their country, as they have had US intervention more often than other country, even attempts by private US citizens to intervene in its internal affairs.

The second thing would then be social organization, since an empire's exploitation of other regions sets up a structure of social dependencies. Trade relations with an empire is never on equal terms. The empire can place its people into key positions that dominate and exploit a country's resources for the benefit of the empire, and this leads to a hierarchial system extending from within the empire down into the foreign regions. Think of the way Britain controlled India, and how the US controls Latin America. The Romans too effected contol through proxy governments backed by Roman military muscle. The US controls, consumes, about a fourth of the world resources and energy, and the price for a US citizen to enjoy their morning cup of coffee, at a tolerable price, can be seen in the shanty towns of Latin America. And if you went to Colombia as a common person, you would be unable to find an "American" cup of coffee to enjoy, even though it is a major producer for the US market, because all of its beans are allotted for foreign export, while the people there (most of them) are left to making coffee from the husks. Or consider Mexico before the revolution where 90% of its mineral resources, fruit, and railwails were owned by US citizens and its own people had nothing. Since the revolution there has grown up a Mexican aristocracy between the Mexicans and their US exploiters, Mexican law requiring Mexican ownership has only produced proxy owners, so the social stratification extends out of region of resources and back to the empire.

There can be little empires then, as corporate conglomorates have come to be. International corporations seek to control its suppliers and develop hierarchial "social" relations extending from the producers of raw material back to corporate headquarters in distant lands, that are themselves controlled by others in a home country. Outright ownership, rather than control, is never a requirement for creating and maintaining 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

Previous

Return to Collegium Historicum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron