Most powerful empire in history?

[Jaster Mereel]

I'm unclear on why this is problematic... Isn't the very name "Republican Rome" (as distinguished from "Roman Empire") intended to indicate that it was NOT an empire? Of course there was a transitional period, between Caesar and Augustus, but this hardly effects the overall picture. Rome was a republic that engaged in imperialism, and thereby eventually became an empire.

The reason why this is problematic is that the Roman Republic is often considered to have had an empire, not that it was an empire. I'm not sure either anymore what is the difference, but that's the reason why I pointed it out. I guess the point I was trying to make was that empire is a thing separate from the sovereign state which controls it, in other words.

I disagree. The very definition of "sovereignty" is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political authority. If one is ruled, one is not sovereign. That is not to say that sovereign states cannot be bullied or influenced by other (presumably sovereign) states, but this does not consitute a loss of sovereignty, or empire. It's a question of who has the final say, rather than who has the most power. America can offer lots of incentives for other states to adopt policies it favors (as well as provide consequences for unfavorable policies), but, at the end of the day, its the rulers of those states who decide on their policies, not America. That is the difference between empire and influence.

Ah, but sovereignty is not necessarily a static thing. For instance, a state may be sovereign in some areas of poicy, while not in others. Take the states which are encorporated into any federal union. Each state exercises a measure of sovereignty, over specific aspects of policy, while in other areas they are subject to the decision of a greater political authority. So, you see, the word "sovereign" is a lot more flexible than you seem to give it credit for. A similar word in Latin is imperium, which has an almost identical meaning in translation to sovereignty. In Rome, consuls had imperium, as did proconsular magistrates in the various provinces of the Republic's territory, as did praetors, but their imperium (sovereignty) was limited by the Roman senate, who always had the final say, even over the sovereignty of legally elected officials. It's nearly the exact same concept, and it's quite subject to interpretation. We can apply the same idea to states. (Forgive me, I like to use Rome as an example. I find that their political ideas, although slightly different from our own, share the same level of complexity and hence are relavent examples.)

Probably a lot of space could have been saved if this thread had been named "most powerful country in history."

I agree.

 

[Chatha]

There is no difference between imperialism and empire, the first is a verb and the latter is a noun. Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of these other entities.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

Capital observation. Bravissimo.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Bullshit!

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Bullshit!

Oh? Care to add anything useful to that?

 

[quadraphonics]

There is no difference between imperialism and empire, the first is a verb and the latter is a noun.

Actually, I'm quite sure that "imperialism" is a noun.

 

[quadraphonics]

Ah, but sovereignty is not necessarily a static thing. For instance, a state may be sovereign in some areas of poicy, while not in others. Take the states which are encorporated into any federal union. Each state exercises a measure of sovereignty, over specific aspects of policy, while in other areas they are subject to the decision of a greater political authority.

Fair enough, although I fear this is line of discussion has become too semantic. So, in an effort to bring things back down to earth, here's a link:

http://hnn.us/articles/1237.html

excerpt:
"First a definition: empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.

This points to a critical distinction between two terms frequently employed as synonyms: hegemony and empire. These are two essentially different relationships. Hegemony means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes."

 

[thedevilsreject]

Actually, I'm quite sure that "imperialism" is a noun.

me too, its not a doing or a being word

jesus i still remember that from when i was 5

 

[Jaster Mereel]

"First a definition: empire means political control exercised by one organized political unit over another unit separate from and alien to it. Many factors enter into empire--economics, technology, ideology, religion, above all military strategy and weaponry--but the essential core is political: the possession of final authority by one entity over the vital political decisions of another. This need not mean direct rule exercised by formal occupation and administration; most empires involve informal, indirect rule. But real empire requires that effective final authority, and states can enjoy various forms of superiority or even domination over others without being empires.

This points to a critical distinction between two terms frequently employed as synonyms: hegemony and empire. These are two essentially different relationships. Hegemony means clear, acknowledged leadership and dominant influence by one unit within a community of units not under a single authority. A hegemon is first among equals; an imperial power rules over subordinates. A hegemonic power is the one without whom no final decision can be reached within a given system; its responsibility is essentially managerial, to see that a decision is reached. An imperial power rules the system, imposes its decision when it wishes."

Alright then. I'll accept this definition, as well as the distinction between hegemony and empire. Now we have to decide; does the United States exercise effective final authority over any other nations? Whether or not it's recognized by anyone is not the issue, only that it occurs. Perhaps some examples would be in order, either to affirm or refute the position.

 

[quadraphonics]

Perhaps some examples would be in order, either to affirm or refute the position.

I think an enlightening (and fairly current) example is the run-up to the war in Iraq. America made a diplomatic push for military and political support from pretty much all of its allies. I think it's clear that America wanted every one of them on board for overthrowing Saddam, at least politically if not actually sending troops and cash. While America has rewarded the allies that participated, and penalized those who didn't, I think that an actual empire would have excercised much more coercive power in such a situation. Major allies like Germany and France struck postures that were outright rebellious, and yet remain allies with close political access and extensive military cooperation. When an empire goes to war, support of the subordinates is not optional. To my perception, the political relationships reflected in the process leading to the invasion fit much better with hegemony than empire. Perhaps the most telling element is the expectation on America's part that the allies needed to be convinced to side with America, rather than simply ordered.

This does, of couse, leave open the position that various countries which are US allies are not necessarily components of the empire (France, for example). However, the same political dynamics played out among countries with very close, highly dependent relationships with America (Canada, Mexico, New Zealand). Also, it's hard for me to think of a coherent border for American empire that wouldn't include Germany, given America's preeminent military role in the area. But, again, the posture of the German government in the Iraq run-up does not fit with my impression of an imperial relationship.

 

[philocipher]

OK I'm back to defend my honor .
My previos post was China as a candidate for the greatest empire . someone ponited out it was a country . and for it to be an empire it would have to have culturely diverse subjects.

well could someone define country for me . ? By all definataion I'm sure u'll fine small countries even do not fit all the criteria. most countries have a diverified culture its only to outsiders it looks the same . to non europeans europeans look the same. !
and china may be one culture to you but not the chinese which see many disctinct cultures and many languages. yes i said languages not dialacts .. again to the outsider it may look the same but its not.
my understanding of an empire is when people of a different nation ( i haven't a clue what a country is except a map ) are subject to the rule of a outside nation hence begins empire building and present day china and chinese may look the same to a european but it is definatly not .



oh and yes the United states does fit the profile of an empire . it has many independent countries amalgamated into it . : ) . hawaii ? california ? texas ? indian territories etc etc
Regards

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I think an enlightening (and fairly current) example is the run-up to the war in Iraq. America made a diplomatic push for military and political support from pretty much all of its allies. I think it's clear that America wanted every one of them on board for overthrowing Saddam, at least politically if not actually sending troops and cash. While America has rewarded the allies that participated, and penalized those who didn't, I think that an actual empire would have excercised much more coercive power in such a situation. Major allies like Germany and France struck postures that were outright rebellious, and yet remain allies with close political access and extensive military cooperation. When an empire goes to war, support of the subordinates is not optional. To my perception, the political relationships reflected in the process leading to the invasion fit much better with hegemony than empire. Perhaps the most telling element is the expectation on America's part that the allies needed to be convinced to side with America, rather than simply ordered.

This does, of couse, leave open the position that various countries which are US allies are not necessarily components of the empire (France, for example). However, the same political dynamics played out among countries with very close, highly dependent relationships with America (Canada, Mexico, New Zealand). Also, it's hard for me to think of a coherent border for American empire that wouldn't include Germany, given America's preeminent military role in the area. But, again, the posture of the German government in the Iraq run-up does not fit with my impression of an imperial relationship.

This is a good point, but what about the allies that did aid and support the United States in the war? Also, would you consider the Soviet Union as having possessed an Empire?

 

[quadraphonics]

This is a good point, but what about the allies that did aid and support the United States in the war?

The most salient thing to notice about those countries is that they have a legitimate option of withdrawing or diminishing their support. Spain, for example, had a change of heart and withdrew their support: at no point did America question their right to do so (although we can be sure that it not ingratiate the new government with the Bush administration). America was downright supportive of Italy's withdrawl. Given all this, it seems clear that the participating countries are indeed free to define the scope and terms of their participation. So, again, we have the US treating them as sovereign (if not exactly equal) nations.

Another instructive example would be Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has deep, long-standing ties with America, both in government and in the military/industrial complex. So much so that they are frequently derided as a US puppet state. Surely, any delineation of American empire would have to include them. And yet, not only did they not permit America to use its Saudi bases when invading Iraq (which had been used for over 10 years, in the first Gulf war and then to patrol the no-fly-zone), they further withdrew permission for America to operate the base at all. Again, America never questioned Saudi Arabia's right to make these decisions, and fully complied with them. Not exactly the behavior of an emperor.

Also, would you consider the Soviet Union as having possessed an Empire?

Sure, or having been an empire (I lose track of the difference). Is this point controversial?

 

[Chatha]

Another instructive example would be Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has deep, long-standing ties with America, both in government and in the military/industrial complex. So much so that they are frequently derided as a US puppet state. Surely, any delineation of American empire would have to include them. And yet, not only did they not permit America to use its Saudi bases when invading Iraq (which had been used for over 10 years, in the first Gulf war and then to patrol the no-fly-zone), they further withdrew permission for America to operate the base at all. Again, America never questioned Saudi Arabia's right to make these decisions, and fully complied with them. Not exactly the behavior of an emperor.

What has this got to do with anything? They still managed to used the UAE and Turkey as a base of operations. Besides is an empire supposed to use military retaliation when a soverign state refuses any terms?Again, You seem to be talking about archaic demonstrations of empirical rule. The world is a lot more complex and there are countless of treaties to condiser before during and after any major political or militarial decision. What about when the Indians became defiant on British rule in 1857, does that make the british any less of an empire?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

What has this got to do with anything? They still managed to used the UAE and Turkey as a base of operations.

Yea, but they did it with the consent of these two nations. Also, I distinctly remember the administration wanting to use Turkey for a ground invasion from the north, and Turkey turned them down.

Besides is an empire supposed to use military retaliation when a soverign state refuses any terms?

Yes. That's exactly what empires do.

Again, You seem to be talking about archaic demonstrations of empirical rule. The world is a lot more complex and there are countless of treaties to condiser before during and after any major political or militarial decision.

Empirical rule? That's great. It's like the physics teacher in my High School making up a song entitled "the Empirical March". Wonderful, LoL.

On a more serious note, he's not talking about archaic demonstrations of Imperial rule. What happened every time a Warsaw Pact state refused to go along with a decision made by the Soviets? The next week there were Soviet tanks in their capital, and Soviet troops shooting protesters. That is Imperial rule, albeit not the kind that lasts very long. Treaties mean virtually nothing to an Imperial power. Any treaty that an Imperial power signs is usually unequal, and they don't go through great pains to stick to the guidelines of those treaties in as respectful a way as you seem to be thinking. Think about all of the treaties during the 19th century between Great Britain and China. Those were Imperial treaties. Empires do what they want to their subject states.

What about when the Indians became defiant on British rule in 1857, does that make the british any less of an empire?

Every time it happened, the British crushed said rebellion.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

The most salient thing to notice about those countries is that they have a legitimate option of withdrawing or diminishing their support. Spain, for example, had a change of heart and withdrew their support: at no point did America question their right to do so (although we can be sure that it not ingratiate the new government with the Bush administration). America was downright supportive of Italy's withdrawl. Given all this, it seems clear that the participating countries are indeed free to define the scope and terms of their participation. So, again, we have the US treating them as sovereign (if not exactly equal) nations.

Another instructive example would be Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government has deep, long-standing ties with America, both in government and in the military/industrial complex. So much so that they are frequently derided as a US puppet state. Surely, any delineation of American empire would have to include them. And yet, not only did they not permit America to use its Saudi bases when invading Iraq (which had been used for over 10 years, in the first Gulf war and then to patrol the no-fly-zone), they further withdrew permission for America to operate the base at all. Again, America never questioned Saudi Arabia's right to make these decisions, and fully complied with them. Not exactly the behavior of an emperor.



Sure, or having been an empire (I lose track of the difference). Is this point controversial?

I think you've convinced me that America does not have an Empire. It only engages in occasional Imperialism. America is the Global Hegemon.

This must explain why we are so bad at interfering in the affairs of other nations.

 

[Chatha]

Every time it happened, the British crushed said rebellion

Where are the British now? For that matter, where are the Romans, Monguls, and Ottoman?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Where are the British now? For that matter, where are the Romans, Monguls, and Ottoman?

The British are still here. The Ottomans were dismantled. As to the other two groups, they had their time and it ran out. Do you think that Empires last forever? If that's what you believe, then there has never been an empire. Not ever. Success is not the standard by which you classify a polity as an empire. How long has America existed? How long will it last?

Also, you didn't address my other points.

 

[Chatha]

Frankly I don't know what else to say. I think you are just a naive emperor and I am a smart one. If both of us were in a competition to rule the world I would win by a huge margin, and the magic is that you wouldn't even know I am winning. Decades upon decades we have learned that you cannot suppress people, its like touching fire repeatedly. Sadly, you are without any hope of learning. You have a different and skewed perception of empirialism. When Britain went into West Africa and most other provinces they swore it was temporarily and that they would leave when the time was right, they said their main aim was to share ideas and trade. Frenchmen has another idea, they said their main aim was to assimilate and learn of the culture, they said every man of their colony was a potential frenchman. In both cases there was never talk OR DEMONSTRATION of political or cultural domination. Both the French and Brits were welcomed in their province, partly due to their great discoveries in ideas, including politics. Trade skewed in their favor a little( partly due to the fact that African leaders didn't need much of their own resources because they prefered to rule their own people in a fascist manner anyway) and African rulers made vast amounts of wealth for the colonials. These wealth couples with enourmous discoveries made them more powerful, same with all other empires in history. The problem started when certain high ranked british men changed their ideas, they saw this as a way to rule the world by force as well, and so the arms building went on and on and on, and so the hatred and defiance went on and on. All this coupled with the vast geography of their empire and the vast major of resources needed to manage it led to their fall. YOU CAN NEVER EVER RULE ANYONE BY FORCE, NOT EVEN BY INTIMIDATION, PEOPLE ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN THAT. The only people you can rule with intimidation are people with an I.Q in the very lower double digits

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Frankly I don't know what else to say. I think you are just a naive emperor and I am a smart one. If both of us were in a competition to rule the world I would win by a huge margin, and the magic is that you wouldn't even know I am winning.

Ok, so what you are saying is that you lack the necessary knowledge and grasp of terminology to effectively reply to my points, and so you have resorted to a blanket affirmation of faith in your ideas?

*Puffs a bit of smoke, adjusting his bifocals to the end of his nose*

No, good Sir, I don't believe you know who you're talking to.

Decades upon decades we have learned that you cannot suppress people, its like touching fire repeatedly. Sadly, you are without any hope of learning. You have a different and skewed perception of empirialism.

I don't think you have a healthy grasp of history, to be perfectly honest. You don't need to last a long time to be called an Empire. You don't even need to control other nations in an effective manner. You just have to do it, for small time at least. It's a label used to define a certain type of political relationship between states. You don't have any idea how I would run an empire, since we haven't been talking about that, have we? I think you and I are talking about two different subjects.

Oh yea, for the record, it's "Imperialism", not "Empirialism".

When Britain went into West Africa and most other provinces they swore it was temporarily and that they would leave when the time was right, they said their main aim was to share ideas and trade. Frenchmen has another idea, they said their main aim was to assimilate and learn of the culture, they said every man of their colony was a potential frenchman. In both cases there was never talk OR DEMONSTRATION of political or cultural domination. Both the French and Brits were welcomed in their province, partly due to their great discoveries in ideas, including politics. Trade skewed in their favor a little( partly due to the fact that African leaders didn't need much of their own resources because they prefered to rule their own people in a fascist manner anyway) and they made vast amounts of wealth. These wealth couples with enourmous discoveries made them more powerful, same with all other empires in history. The problem started when certain high ranked british men changed their ideas, they saw this as a way to rule the world by force as well, and so the arms building went on and on and on, and so the hatred and defiance went on and on. All this coupled with the vast geography of their empire and the vast major of resources needed to manage it led to their fall. YOU CAN NEVER EVER RULE ANYONE BY FORCE, NOT EVEN BY INTIMIDATION, PEOPLE ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN THAT

You have no idea what happened during the Age of European Imperialism. I have no clue where you got these ideas from. I am certain that my time and the energy necessary for me to type in this keyboard are completely wasted in this discussion with you. I'm sorry.