Most powerful empire in history?

[Chatha]

You don't need to have a constitution to be a state

What law school did you go to. You mean you don't have to have any sort of law to have a state? Then if you don't have a set of laws how can there be a leader, and if there is no leader how can there be a state? More like a "state of pandemonium". This is new to me. Listen, any self respecting society has to have some basic common laws and rights to be recognized as a state.

1) A democracy cannot be an empire unless it starts out as an empire.

Where the fuck did you get this shit from?

2) You need to overtly control either a considerable amount of land outside of your own borders or a number of conquered states to be an empire

Yes, I never argued that, but thats archaic. I was postulating a "new breed" of empires. Its a theory but it holds some water if you look around you.

3) Culture and influence, which are things that help to MAKE an empire, do not by themselves make up an empire (if you can even call 50 cent and spelling everything wrong culture) which is something you clearly don't understand. I can buy a computer with some cash but I cannot type "you are an unimaginable buffoon" on that cash, like I can on this computer, you unimaginable buffoon.

I am confused here.

Listen, if you care, by all means I am not forcing you to, so please slow down on the abuse. Former empires were able to sieze large parcels of lands because at that time that was the way things were done. In 1800 England for example the state controlled parcels of land in Northern England and had all the barons of provinces in their pocket. In fact Feudalism was the way of the economy. This was the norm. If you wanted to be an empire you had to control and over see other lands literarily. Britain was able to colonize many states because they were the focus of intellectual, military, and political advancement. Today, with emails, TV, Fax, and such technological infrastructures, coupled with many global eco-political intitutions such as UN, E.U, NAFTA, AU, e.t.c, the game has changed. People are more enlightened today and the only means of propagating an empire is almost surely military means. Why? because cultures are able to adopt other cultures and still retain theirs, because scientific advances have taken the focus away from peripheral subjects such as cultural, and travelling from one country to another is a matter of a passport and a ticket and the airline will do the rest. I never said Rome was not an empire, nor was England, I only pointed out what made them an empire is also what led to their collapse, many books have been written on this account. Why is this such a problem for you? Anyway as as far as "modern imperialism" is concerned, I did not make it up, many books have been written on that exact same topic.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

You can have laws by decree, you can have laws that have existed from conquerors from thousands of years ago. You have a completely unobjective view of this....are you a yank?

A democracy cannot be an empire unless it starts out as an empire because democracies don't go overtly conquering other nations for the glory of their own nation. You can have a situation where a democracy or republic BECOMES an empire when it ceases to be a democracy ala the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire.

This "new breed" of empires you talk about is nothing more than countries that don't have empires wanting to change the definition of empire so that they can pretend to be an empire. Forget that nonsense right now. We already know what an empire is.

In 1800 "England" was the United Kingdom. If you do not even know what that country was called, how can you tell me whether or not it was an empire? england was only an empire until 1707. You could even argue that it could only be considered an empire until 1603. After that it was Britain and the United Kingdom.

So, let's recap. You don't know the definition of an empire, and you don't even know the difference between england, Britain, and the United Kingdom? Why am I even humouring you?

 

[quadraphonics]

What law school did you go to. You mean you don't have to have any sort of law to have a state? Then if you don't have a set of laws how can there be a leader, and if there is no leader how can there be a state? More like a "state of pandemonium". This is new to me. Listen, any self respecting society has to have some basic common laws and rights to be recognized as a state.

He didn't say you didn't have to have a Basic Law, he said you don't have to have a constitution, and he's right. There are plenty of states out there that don't have constitutions. Notable examples would be the UK and Israel. It's difficult to find exact numbers, but I'd be surprised if more than half of the states on the map today had constitutions.

Also, it should be obvious that there are plenty of ways for leadership to arise that don't require constitutional, or even formal, means. The rule of law is not a precondition for statehood.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

Yeah, that's what I meant in the first line of my last post....it was a bit unclear, thanks Quadraphonics.

 

[quadraphonics]

A democracy cannot be an empire unless it starts out as an empire because democracies don't go overtly conquering other nations for the glory of their own nation.

Did you include the "starts out as an empire" clause in order to exclude the UK and France from this statement?

 

[quadraphonics]

On the question of whether the United States is (or has) an empire, Alexander J. Motyl had the following to say (in a book review essay in the July/August 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs):

"The United States shares many, but not all traits [of empire] (such as bigness, multiethnicity, and arrogance) with non-empires such as Brazil, Canada, France, and Indonesia [...]. One common mistake is to conflate empire and imperialism, even though the first is a type of polity and the second is a type of policy. [...] Another mistake is to think of empires simply as "big multinational states." But by this definition, the category would have to include Canada. "Big and powerful multinational states" is better, but still too broad, as it would have to include India. Even "great power" does not work, because some empires, such as that of the Hapsburgs, were not terribly strong and because many great powers lack the structural features of empires.

Many scholars agree that empires should be defined as polities with a peculiar kind of relationship between a dominant "core" and subordinate and distinctive "peripheries." The core is not simply larger or more powerful than the peripheries, nor does it simply influence them in some heavy-handed manner. It actually rules them, either directly or indirectly, through local surrogates.

No less important is the absence of significant relations between or among peripheries. In empires, the peripheries almost exclusively interact through the core. The resulting arrangement resembles a rimless wheel, consisting of a hub and spokes. The idea of all roads leading to Rome accurately describes the imperial structure.

So does the United States qualify? It would be absurd to say that the 50 states are an empire. Does the United States have an empire? It is too soon to say whether occupied Iraq will become a U.S. colony, although from the way the war has been going, the chances are that it will not. Afghanistan is hardly a U.S. periphery. Puerto Rico's relationship with the mainland might be "colonial," as might Samoa's and Guam's, but a few minor islands make for a pretty dull empire.

The United States and its institutions, political and cultural, certainly have an overbearing influence on the world today, but why should that influence be termed "imperial," as opposed to "hegemonic" or just "exceptionally powerful"? McDonald's may offend people, but it is unclear how a fast-food chain sustains U.S. control of peripheral territories. U.S. military bases dot the world and may facilitate Washinton's bullying, but they would be indicative of empire only if they were imposed and maintained without the consent of local governments. Hollywood may promote Americanization - or anti-Americanism - but its cultural influence is surely no more imperial than the vaunted "soft power" of the European Union."

 

[quadraphonics]

China used to be chopped up into smaller kingdoms, but all of those kingdoms were culturally Chinese.

What about Tibet and Xinjiang?

 

[Chatha]

In 1800 "England" was the United Kingdom. If you do not even know what that country was called, how can you tell me whether or not it was an empire? england was only an empire until 1707. You could even argue that it could only be considered an empire until 1603. After that it was Britain and the United Kingdom.

Fine, beautiful , all well and good, superb, excellent, no question. My only question is where is the empire today? LOL you see how stupid you look. Its like saying Humans are human because they eat shit, knowing fully well that shit is what causes humans to be sick and die, becoming no more human. Here is what you have failed to notice
* The world is big, it is fucking big, it is so big it makes your head spin. The enormity of the world is so big that even if you tried you cannot imagaine it. This makes it very difficult to have a good grasp on colonies, especially in a time where they was no TV, internet, e-mail, e.t.c. Its almost as if the minute you turn your back your colonies are laughing at you, so you have to devote virtually all your time and resource to maintaining stability. In cases where this resource may be temprarily compromised for example, your only option is to do huge adjustments to the geo-pololitical system, which itself can take months or even years at a time. All the while certain groups are planning your demise, may I regurgitate that this was the reason why Rome was sacked at one time? England and France had to work together at certain points of their colonial rule, the only reason why we don't have them as a single country today is because of despise for each other, and partly the french revolution, this difference can be seen durng the war of 1812 in America. Let me ask you a question sincerely, do you think that it is possible to rule the world the same way today? I want a definitive answer since the dictionary gave a definitive definition. So what do you think?

 

[Chatha]

A democracy cannot be an empire unless it starts out as an empire because democracies don't go overtly conquering other nations for the glory of their own nation. You can have a situation where a democracy or republic BECOMES an empire when it ceases to be a democracy ala the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire

Interesting bit, better tell that to the organization for nations for democracy, which was formed by Madaline albright in 1997(former U.S sec of state); their purpose and doctrine is to impose democracy on other nations.

He didn't say you didn't have to have a Basic Law, he said you don't have to have a constitution, and he's right. There are plenty of states out there that don't have constitutions. Notable examples would be the UK and Israel. It's difficult to find exact numbers, but I'd be surprised if more than half of the states on the map today had constitutions.

All nations have the equivalence of a constitution, a constitution is basically a set of rules, rights, and customs. You can't even have a society without some form of rules, much less a state. Even Homo erectus had basic sets of rules.

The United States and its institutions, political and cultural, certainly have an overbearing influence on the world today, but why should that influence be termed "imperial," as opposed to "hegemonic" or just "exceptionally powerful"? McDonald's may offend people, but it is unclear how a fast-food chain sustains U.S. control of peripheral territories. U.S. military bases dot the world and may facilitate Washinton's bullying, but they would be indicative of empire only if they were imposed and maintained without the consent of local governments. Hollywood may promote Americanization - or anti-Americanism - but its cultural influence is surely no more imperial than the vaunted "soft power" of the European Union."

Do you know how many countries have U.S military bases? Even fucking UAE has a U.S military base, at a certain time there was over 50 aircraft carries and battle ships in seas around the world. Factor all that with socio-economic and politican influence. Well, you may be right, I rest my case.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

Fine, beautiful , all well and good, superb, excellent, no question. My only question is where is the empire today? LOL you see how stupid you look. Its like saying Humans are human because they eat shit, knowing fully well that shit is what causes humans to be sick and die, becoming no more human. Here is what you have failed to notice
* The world is big, it is fucking big, it is so big it makes your head spin. The enormity of the world is so big that even if you tried you cannot imagaine it. This makes it very difficult to have a good grasp on colonies, especially in a time where they was no TV, internet, e-mail, e.t.c. Its almost as if the minute you turn your back your colonies are laughing at you, so you have to devote virtually all your time and resource to maintaining stability. In cases where this resource may be temprarily compromised for example, your only option is to do huge adjustments to the geo-pololitical system, which itself can take months or even years at a time. All the while certain groups are planning your demise, may I regurgitate that this was the reason why Rome was sacked at one time? England and France had to work together at certain points of their colonial rule, the only reason why we don't have them as a single country today is because of despise for each other, and partly the french revolution, this difference can be seen durng the war of 1812 in America. Let me ask you a question sincerely, do you think that it is possible to rule the world the same way today? I want a definitive answer since the dictionary gave a definitive definition. So what do you think?

I refuse to even begin to answer any question asked by you until you do as I requested many posts ago and learn the difference between england, Britain, and the United Kingdom.

 

[Chatha]

Why am I not surprised

 

[Sari]

why don`t you look up the Abaasi muslim empire , they lasted 600 years

but if it is THE STRONGEST empire i have to say the Otmani empire , afterall they were the ones that overcame THE STRONGEST city .

 

[Chatha]

Never heard, I live in the West.

 

[quadraphonics]

Do you know how many countries have U.S military bases?

The last count I saw had around 800 military bases in about 140 countries. But, again, these bases are not imposed against the will of the host countries, nor does simply being "big and powerful" qualify one as an empire.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Look, until later on in it's history Rome didn't exercise a great deal of direct control over the territory which is classically considered to be a part of the Roman Empire. Have you ever heard of the client state system? There is a wonderful dissection of it in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by E. Luttwak. Everyone in here should pick it up sometime.

What I'm trying to say is that direct political control is not necessary to be considered an Empire, and in fact many of the most powerful and enduring Empires in history exerted their control in very subtle, non-direct ways. The fact that many of America's allies could tell them to get the hell out of their country does not mean that America does not, in fact, control these nations. If they did do just that, there would be economic consequences, and the loss of American military protection, which is the reason why many of these bases exist.

 

[quadraphonics]

All nations have the equivalence of a constitution, a constitution is basically a set of rules, rights, and customs. You can't even have a society without some form of rules, much less a state. Even Homo erectus had basic sets of rules.

If the law of the jungle counts as a constitution, then, yes, all states have constitutions. Of course, under this definition, even colonies of ants have constitutions, so...

 

[Chatha]

I will leave America open for discussion. However nobody has since answered my question,i.e what happened to these so called empires? Why did they collapse? India alone has up to a billion people, tell me does it make any sense invading a country of that size? Let me help you out. America invaded and occupied a tiny country called Iraq and are in a quagmire today, imagine if they had invaded India or 5 more countries. Imagine the devastation. So let me ask you for the last time on this thread, what do you think caused the collapse of the so called empires of then? The whole thing is a no brainer. Intelligent empires would prefer to be in Americas shoes today, everybody wants to visit america and make a living, literaly giving new menaing to the "all roads leads to America" .America has managed to accumulate so much wealth that surpasses any previous empire without out and out invasion. Just visit Las Vegas and you will be amazed how ridiculously rich America is, there is so much money in America that they don't een know what to do with it. Again, America is open for discussion.

Look, until later on in it's history Rome didn't exercise a great deal of direct control over the territory which is classically considered to be a part of the Roman Empire. Have you ever heard of the client state system? There is a wonderful dissection of it in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by E. Luttwak. Everyone in here should pick it up sometime.What I'm trying to say is that direct political control is not necessary to be considered an Empire, and in fact many of the most powerful and enduring Empires in history exerted their control in very subtle, non-direct ways. The fact that many of America's allies could tell them to get the hell out of their country does not mean that America does not, in fact, control these nations. If they did do just that, there would be economic consequences, and the loss of American military protection, which is the reason why many of these bases exist.

You are more in tune with reality, and you are a smart man. You cleared up a lot of mess here.

 

[Chatha]

Yes, Rome did conduct foreign politics but it’s not like the one’s we have today. Nine times out of ten they conquered a province then they assigned regional leaders, then diplomacy followed consequently. Of cause some regions did not put up a fight so all Rome had to do was embrace those states and gave them less military attention and more diplomatic ones, these is what the client state system means, and usually citizens of these favorite states were also citizens of Rome. Back in those times politics was done with a sword and dagger on the table. Military mean and killers played as politicians (Julius Caesar), and states had interests but no principles. There are many reasons why Rome fell, political unrest, terrorism, polytheism, economic hardship, e.t.c. But another reason why it fell was that it was in a state of far-from-equilibrium, where expectations did not match reality. At one time the empire was vast enough to be divided into two and there were arguments on which side held more sway over the empire, this was the beginning of loss of identity. Its very simple, if you have a culture big enough its a matter of time before smaller interior cultures and ideas start to develop and eat up the parent culture. Look at christianity, started out as catholic, ended up as baptist, methodist, anglican, Protestant, Othodox, African, Mormon, Presbyterian, new age e.t.c. Another way to look at culture is that " while the dog is out, the cat will play". Its a no brainer, small and nimble is better than big and cumbersome.

 

[Facial]

China used to be chopped up into smaller kingdoms, but all of those kingdoms were culturally Chinese.

Are you sure?

During the Warring States period, the seven countries involved had different customs. One of the examples is Wu, which after being conquered dispatched 8000 people to the southern part of an archipelago northeast of China. This happens to be Southern Japan, and its ancient customs are very well documented in the Han dynasty.

 

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

Look, until later on in it's history Rome didn't exercise a great deal of direct control over the territory which is classically considered to be a part of the Roman Empire. Have you ever heard of the client state system? There is a wonderful dissection of it in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire by E. Luttwak. Everyone in here should pick it up sometime.

What I'm trying to say is that direct political control is not necessary to be considered an Empire, and in fact many of the most powerful and enduring Empires in history exerted their control in very subtle, non-direct ways. The fact that many of America's allies could tell them to get the hell out of their country does not mean that America does not, in fact, control these nations. If they did do just that, there would be economic consequences, and the loss of American military protection, which is the reason why many of these bases exist.

Are these nations the same colour as the US on the map? Stop pretending the US has an empire. It's pathetic.