Empires With Expiration Dates

[caldrail]

Browsing the net I came across an essay of foreign policy quite by chance. With the european union looking very much like a wannabe empire, I thought it might be useful sharing the work with you all.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3550

 

Anyone who's read my blog recently will know my misgivings about the franco-german desire for a european empire, something they've always aspired to. My main objection is that all such empires eventually crumble, and usually violently. History is happening right under our noses and its all been done before...

 

[ASCLEPIADES]

Browsing the net I came across an essay of foreign policy quite by chance. With the european union looking very much like a wannabe empire, I thought it might be useful sharing the work with you all.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3550

 

Anyone who's read my blog recently will know my misgivings about the franco-german desire for a european empire, something they've always aspired to. My main objection is that all such empires eventually crumble, and usually violently. History is happening right under our noses and its all been done before...

 

Salve et Gratiam habeo for such nice link, Cal. It will certainly have to been reviewed carefully previous to any comment.

I will love to check your blog too.

[Klingan]

Well posted. I will be back with an elaborated answer as soon as possible, as I have some objections.

[ASCLEPIADES]

From a quick checking on this provoking article, I can say Ferguson have a lot of interesting concepts and made some good statements, but overall his comparisons are tricky and asymmetrical, mainly because he didn't give any explicit working definition for what an "empire" is for him; as it frequently happens at UNRV, he is comparing apples with oranges with coconuts: the "average Roman Empire"? Please...

 

If we literally consider his statement on the III Reich as his implicit definition for an Empire (sic: "Technically, the Third Reich lasted 12 years; as an empire in the true sense of the word, exerting power over foreign peoples, it lasted barely half that time"), the Roman Empire was there long before Augustus (at least from Camillus' conquest of Veies, maybe even from Tullius Hostilius' conquest of Alba Longa) and it lasted no longer than the IV Crusade at 1204 (the capital change from Rome to Constantinople is irrelevant for his own definition); the non-roman so called "Holy Roman Empire", on the other hand, got no farther than the Golden Bull of 1356, and that's presumably still too generous.

 

Anyhow, I basically agree with his conclusions on Iraq and Afghanistan (even if I got there by not exactly the same reasoning), which seems to be the main purpose for this article. No way to rule an Empire, no matter how you define it.

[Ursus]

I rather think the most successive empires are forged for mostly defensive purposes. Look at Rome: an empire was forged simply by absorbing the territories of local rivals (the definition of "local" becoming ever broader as strategic theatres enlarged): Etruscans, Italians, Celts, Hellenistic powers, Carthaginians.

 

Likewise I rather think the major powers of Europe have to unify for their own relevance. In the face of the rising powers of the Asia/Pacific rim, an increasingly militant Islamic world, and to achieve parity with the US, the Franco-Germanic Europe better aspire to lofty heights or find itself increasingly a footnote to history.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I rather think the most successive empires are forged for mostly defensive purposes. Look at Rome: an empire was forged simply by absorbing the territories of local rivals (the definition of "local" becoming ever broader as strategic theatres enlarged): Etruscans, Italians, Celts, Hellenistic powers, Carthaginians.

It depends which account you rely on: if I use any radically nationalistic text, let's say Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita as sacred words, I will have to blindly believe that Rome really conquered the known world in perpetual self-defence. Of course, all Empires and nations can play the same game. Under such assumptions, aggressive war simply doesn't exist. We would be forced to admit that Arabia Felix and Nubia were a real menace for Augustus' Empire, Inca and Aztecs for Spain, Zulu and Maori for Britain, Finland and Lithuania for the Soviet Union or Luxembourg and Greece for the III Reich.

[Kosmo]

I think this link was posted before. The author oversimplifies and has huge errors of judgment. So many that I feel that pointing them would involve to much effort for it's worth.

Europe it's not an empire, being rather reluctant to expand, but a federation based on common values and needs.

Misgivings are many like the Irish just showed, but the benefits clearly are much better at least on the continent where nation-states have a long history of conflict. There is no middle way between tribal states in perpetual competition and a broad based unity.

[Faustus]

From a quick checking on this provoking article, I can say Ferguson have a lot of interesting concepts and made some good statements, but overall his comparisons are tricky and asymmetrical, mainly because he didn't give any explicit working definition for what an "empire" is for him;

Empire or Hegemony < CLICK >

[ASCLEPIADES]

From a quick checking on this provoking article, I can say Ferguson have a lot of interesting concepts and made some good statements, but overall his comparisons are tricky and asymmetrical, mainly because he didn't give any explicit working definition for what an "empire" is for him;

Empire or Hegemony < CLICK >

Salve, F.

Both terms are not mutually exclusive.

Here comes the American heritage Dictionnary:

 

Empire:A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

 

Hegemony: The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

[Northern Neil]

The definitions of Empire waver somewhat here. For example, Niall Ferguson states that the Soviet Union was an Empire, but leaves republican Rome out of the equation. So, does an Empire have to have an hereditary head of state, or not? He misses out Egypt altogether, which lasted about two and a half millenia. Ok, apart from the annexation of Palestine in the Middle Kingdom (or was it the new?) its 'foreign' possessions were but few. Yet it was a state which held sway over foreign peoples for a very long time.

 

The US fails to a degree in the Empire stakes on account of having few foreign possessions, continental US obviously being regarded as home ground - yet the American plains/midwest are colonial acquisitions in exactly the same sense as much of Africa was to the British and French. So in that sense, we already have an 'Empire' of 200 years standing (I am not 'US bashing' here, BTW - simply using available data to counter some of these ideas).

 

To what extent does regime change mean the start/demise of an empire? Parthia and Persia may have technically been different states, but from the Roman point of view, it was business as usual with the Eastern neighbour from 80 BC until AD625. Again, shooting the Tsar did not stop Russia from gobbling up its neighbours, did not change the underlying culture or language of the elite, and did not permanently effect the religion of the dominant ethnic group either. Linguistic and cultural extermination of minority groups continues to this day: Volga Finns, Turkic groups in several areas and the Samoyedic peoples being a few examples.

 

Moreover, the nature of colonisation is now different than in the past. In Europe we have experienced considerable immigration from Middle Eastern and Asian countries in recent years. These people rigidly protect their own culture and acquire large areas of their host nation's cities for their almost exclusive use, and in extreme cases even advocate eventual ethnic and political control of the host nation. If empires are indeed crumbling under our very noses as Caldrail suggests, then the refusal of Western democracies to recognise this trend may be a factor. Colonisation such as this is an entirely recent phenomenon and as such does not figure in this essay, yet it may well effect the matter under discussion.

 

Lastly (phew, I hear some say!) One cannot in all seriousness regard the EU as an empire, and if it seems like a Franco - German exercise in assuming some kind of imperial power, then it is the fault of timid British governments that it has not become a Franco - Anglo - German force up until now. This idea also excludes the influence of other powerful nations such as Italy and Spain. The EU is there for all member countries to participate as their governments see fit.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Silentium]

The US fails to a degree in the Empire stakes on account of having few foreign possessions, continental US

obviously being regarded as home ground - yet the American plains/midwest are colonial acquisitions in exactly the

same sense as much of Africa was to the British and French. So in that sense, we already have an 'Empire' of 200

years standing (I am not 'US bashing' here, BTW - simply using available data to counter some of these ideas).

 

This is more or less what Ferguson says in his book "Colossus", which deals principally with the US.

 

Lastly (phew, I hear some say!) One cannot in all seriousness regard the EU as an empire, and if it seems like a

Franco - German exercise in assuming some kind of imperial power, then it is the fault of timid British governments

that it has not become a Franco - Anglo - German force up until now. This idea also excludes the influence of other

powerful nations such as Italy and Spain. The EU is there for all member countries to participate as their governments see fit.

 

Precisely.

 

By calling it a Franco-German conspiracy you are underestimating (greatly) the other European countries (and their nationalism) and misrepresenting the decision making process within the EU institutions. These countries have had such a prominent place because they have a large population and political influence. I'm sure you know well the political weight of France can't be compared to that of Slovenia.

However, if the UK had got more involved in the Messina Conference and the Treaty of Rome at the right time, maybe she could have shaped the EU from within and

have the same resonance France and Germany have today, although at that time you were more concerned with the Commonwealth and the Empire, on which the sun had already set from a long time. Now I honestly don't think you can complain if the EU is more France and Germany oriented. On the other hand I don't think it would be wise for either Ireland or the UK to quit the EU, for you will find yourself crushed between the US, an incrisingly more powerful and strong EU and the emerging economic powers (China, India,etc.), which any long sighted politician would consider as a suicide.

[Antiochus III]

I think that there should be no need for imperialistic thought or empires to exist. Those two things only exist because of human overpopulation.

 

Antiochus III

 

ps. I know some of you will have a lot to say against this argument...

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think that there should be no need for imperialistic thought or empires to exist. Those two things only exist because of human overpopulation.

 

Antiochus III

 

ps. I know some of you will have a lot to say against this argument...

Salve, A

You know it right; maybe you have read too much Paul Erlich.

 

As far as I remember, III Reich imperialism was due to an overpopulation of one F

[ASCLEPIADES]

The definitions of Empire waver somewhat here. For example, Niall Ferguson states that the Soviet Union was an Empire, but leaves republican Rome out of the equation. So, does an Empire have to have an hereditary head of state, or not?

Salve, NR.

 

Ferguson plays with at least two quite different and independent uses of the word "Empire":

1) an autocratic form of government, which is what we all commonly understand for "Roman Empire" (ie, Rome after the Republic) and

2) a political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

 

I think Kosmo is right (post #7); anyhow, as we deal with all Roman at UNRV, some maths won't hurt.

Just for the record, the Imperialism of the Roman state (second definition) would have lasted at least 1600 years, from the capture of Veies (396 bc) to the IV Crusade (1204 ad).

 

(And at the risk of overstating the obvious, the "Holy Roman Empire" was just cheap plagiarism)

Edited June 24, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Lastly (phew, I hear some say!) One cannot in all seriousness regard the EU as an empire, and if it seems like a

Franco - German exercise in assuming some kind of imperial power, then it is the fault of timid British governments

that it has not become a Franco - Anglo - German force up until now. This idea also excludes the influence of other

powerful nations such as Italy and Spain. The EU is there for all member countries to participate as their governments see fit.

 

Precisely.

 

By calling it a Franco-German conspiracy you are underestimating (greatly) the other European countries (and their nationalism) and misrepresenting the decision making process within the EU institutions. These countries have had such a prominent place because they have a large population and political influence. I'm sure you know well the political weight of France can't be compared to that of Slovenia.

However, if the UK had got more involved in the Messina Conference and the Treaty of Rome at the right time, maybe she could have shaped the EU from within and

have the same resonance France and Germany have today, although at that time you were more concerned with the Commonwealth and the Empire, on which the sun had already set from a long time. Now I honestly don't think you can complain if the EU is more France and Germany oriented. On the other hand I don't think it would be wise for either Ireland or the UK to quit the EU, for you will find yourself crushed between the US, an incrisingly more powerful and strong EU and the emerging economic powers (China, India,etc.), which any long sighted politician would consider as a suicide.

 

You say european nationalism cannot be underestimated. Spot on. Both France and Germany want a european empire (or at least their influential members do) and I can easily see some jostling between the two. As for Britain getting more involved - to what end? The result would be the same. Time and again Britain has stuck to agreements made in the EU and other nations pay lip service to them. In any case, if the european empire goes ahead - and sooner or later it will whether we want it - is Britain going to be allowed to remain an essentially independent nation state with its own identity? I very much doubt in the long run that national borders will matter much, nor whichever nation we once belonged to. The article by Prof. Ferguson has been heavily criticised but he is right about one thing - modern empires have been very keen to reconstruct society to fit in with their own control systems. The USofE will be no different. National institutions will not survive in the long run, because unification means exactly that - a unified empire. The british government are very keen to get into europe, and it took a private individual to take legal action to attempt to force the government to hold the promised referendum. Britains government doesn't want such a vote. It may well fail, it will embarress the politicans concerned, and spoil all those deals and agreements made behind doors. My main objection is that the creation of ever more powerful institutions is that -

 

1 - It removes the powerful even further from accountability

 

2 - It provides a ready made framework for a dictatorial and ambitious politician.