The Course of Empire

[Minerva]

I came across a painting by Thomas Cole titled The Course of Empire: Destrucion which got me thinking. I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

[ASCLEPIADES]

I came across a painting by Thomas Cole titled The Course of Empire: Destrucion

 

Edited July 12, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Kosmo]

The devastation brought by modern wars had vilified war, but war was not so bad before it became an industry. Holland became world's most richest and developed country in 1648 after more then 80 years of early modern war.

You say war it's "undeniably destructive" and I don't believe that. War it's sometimes creative, revolutionary and brings change.

To go beck to roman history, Italy became the bedrock of the roman empire only after it was devastated by several wars. The Etruscans and the Greeks were absorbed and Italy became Latin after Hannibal's campaigns and the Social War.

[caldrail]

I came across a painting by Thomas Cole titled The Course of Empire: Destrucion which got me thinking. I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

 

Empires are a group of external territories ruled from the dominant member. That doesn't mean conquest is always the reason for this grouping. Europe is assembling an empire right under our noses as we speak. The destruction of an empire can occur for a number of reasons. there is a sort of analogy with biology, in that empires grow, mature, then wither away or get killed off. Further, advancement isn't always possible in an empire, and in recent times the only reason some empires showed any advancement at all is the need o compete with other powerful blocs that are advancing their interests a little more easily. As with most things in this univrse, the glory and advancement of an empire are relative. I doubt the jews were too impressed with the romans, and was gladiatorial combat, a free public entertainment, really a cultural high point? Not by our standards, but I suspect the romans considered it so. Many people thought the nazi regime was a great advance before the war started - they had turned germany around from a bankrupt loser to vibrant expansionist society, yet at what cost? The persians had an empire of sufficient size to create a stand-off with Rome. Although the persians were an advancing society with great wealth, they were also a cruel fuedal regime whose treatment of their common folk was far worse than the romans own.

 

Its common to think of an empire as the result of destructive conquest (it sometimes is, and those are the stories we hear most often) but that isn't always the case.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The devastation brought by modern wars had vilified war, but war was not so bad before it became an industry. Holland became world's most richest and developed country in 1648 after more then 80 years of early modern war.

You say war it's "undeniably destructive" and I don't believe that. War it's sometimes creative, revolutionary and brings change.

To go beck to roman history, Italy became the bedrock of the roman empire only after it was devastated by several wars. The Etruscans and the Greeks were absorbed and Italy became Latin after Hannibal's campaigns and the Social War.

Salve, K. You must be kidding.

 

It's clear the devastation brought by any war at any time haven't vilified War enough; finding the Helvetii carnage by Caesar's legions any different from Hiroshima's aftermath is just a matter of personal taste.

 

It's precisely because war is always "undeniably destructive" that Epic has been, is and will forever be required, so any of us might willingly become cannon fodder.

 

Strictly speaking, War never "creates"; certainly, you may rightly expect some change, even if more often than not, such change tends to turn on the negative side for most people, warmongers included.

That's why War must always be seen as the last resource.

 

Trying to justify any war in exchange of any perceived cultural benefit (let say Italy becoming Latin) must be seen as a controversial idea for many, extremely dangerous for some of us.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I came across a painting by Thomas Cole titled The Course of Empire: Destrucion which got me thinking. I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

 

Empires are a group of external territories ruled from the dominant member. That doesn't mean conquest is always the reason for this grouping.

That is an Oxymoron. Peaceful conquest (ie, by bullying) is still conquest.

 

Europe is assembling an empire right under our noses as we speak.

That has been widely discussed in another thread. No evidence has been so far presented of anything remotely like that currently happening. Check it out.

 

The destruction of an empire can occur for a number of reasons. there is a sort of analogy with biology, in that empires grow, mature, then wither away or get killed off.

Social Darwinism? Anyway, that analogy is fallacious; the "maturing" of a state (Imperial or not), whatever you may mean, is not biological.

 

The persians had an empire of sufficient size to create a stand-off with Rome. Although the persians were an advancing society with great wealth, they were also a cruel fuedal regime whose treatment of their common folk was far worse than the romans own.

Your source on this one? Certainly not Christian or Jewish; I don't think even our Roman Quisling "Titus Flavius" Josephus had ever stated something like that.

BTW, Persian socio-economical system would have been considered "semi-feudal" at best.

 

Its common to think of an empire as the result of destructive conquest (it sometimes is, and those are the stories we hear most often) but that isn't always the case.

The mere existence of a "non-destructive" conquest a quite controversial issue.

Anyway, as far as I know, "sometimes" implies "more than 99%" at best.

Edited July 13, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

No.

[Minerva]

I suppose all Empires begin with war which is undeniably destructive, but surely an empire's entire course is not one of destruction? But can the glory and advancement brought about by empires condone for the initial destruction?

No.

 

I thought as much. Anyway "what passing bells for those who die as cattle?" (W.Owen) has always made more sense to me than "...death in battle is glorious" (Virgil)

[Kosmo]

If we are speaking of attitudes toward the war it's clear that WW1 was the turning point. Before that war was not always perceived as bad as it is seen now. Romans clearly engaged in war without giving it much thought and martial qualities were highly appreciated.

Ancient war was not as devastating as WW2 because armies were small, slow and concentrated. The devastation occurred on a small area along the marching route and often inhabitants had time to hide if they had suitable shelter near by. Helveti were mostly warriors killed on the battlefield while people in Hiroshima were mostly civilians.

War often brought change, sometimes for the worse, but it played a major role in technological and cultural diffusion and the shaping of political structures. The Republic, in Rome and in the Greek city states was a political expression of a new military organization, the mass levy made possible by cheap iron weapons. Caesar's campaign in Gaul was not only devastating but also brought to NW Europe the many advances of Mediterranean civilizations. The population loss was quickly compensated by a rapid growth made possible by this advances and by the roman peace. Indeed, for large areas the roman conquest meant the beginning of a period more peaceful then the constant warfare before.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Helveti were mostly warriors killed on the battlefield while people in Hiroshima were mostly civilians.

Let's check the sources.

Here comes Caius Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, Liber I, cp. XXIX:

 

In castris Helvetiorum tabulae repertae sunt litteris Graecis confectae et ad Caesarem relatae, quibus in tabulis nominatim ratio confecta erat, qui numerus domo exisset eorum qui arma ferre possent, et item separatim, quot pueri, senes mulieresque. [Quarum omnium rerum] summa erat capitum Helvetiorum milium CCLXIII, Tulingorum milium XXXVI, Latobrigorum XIIII, Rauracorum XXIII, Boiorum XXXII; ex his qui arma ferre possent ad milia nonaginta duo. Summa omnium fuerunt ad milia CCCLXVIII. Eorum qui domum redierunt censu habito, ut Caesar imperaverat, repertus est numerus milium C et X.

 

"In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters, and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up, name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country of those who were able to bear arms; and likewise the boys, the old men, and the women, separately. Of all which items the total was: Of the Helvetii [lit. of the heads of the Helvetii] 263,000 Of the Tulingi . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000 Of the Latobrigi .- . . . . . . . . . . 14,000 Of the Rauraci . . . . . . . . . . . 23,000 Of the Boii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000 The sum of all amounted to . . . 368,000. Out of these, such as could bear arms, [amounted] to about 92,000. When the census of those who returned home was taken, as Caesar had commanded, the number was found to be 110,000".

 

... ie, 276,000 civilians (75%); 258,000 death (70%).

 

Upper range for Hiroshima Little Boy's global killing was around 140,000 at the end of 1845, plus some thoudans of late fatalities.

Of course modern technology let the carnage be far more efficient.

That doesn't implies ancient warfare was any less "devastating".

[ASCLEPIADES]

Romans clearly engaged in war without giving it much thought and martial qualities were highly appreciated.

The thumbs automutilation reports and the decimation of the legions tell us another story.

 

Martial qualities have been always highly appreciated by any ruler class ... on any military class.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The population loss was quickly compensated by a rapid growth made possible by this advances and by the roman peace. Indeed, for large areas the roman conquest meant the beginning of a period more peaceful then the constant warfare before.

Herr Hitler couldn't have said it better.

 

Anyway, I would really like to know your sources on this one.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Caesar's campaign in Gaul was not only devastating but also brought to NW Europe the many advances of Mediterranean civilizations. ... Indeed, for large areas the roman conquest meant the beginning of a period more peaceful then the constant warfare before.

That's EVERY imperialist and conqueror justification. It's clear some nazis really believed that the slaves' conquest by Germany was required for the evolution of those undermenschen.

 

War has never been required for the transmission of civilization and advances.

Actually, such transmission is far more efficient under peaceful conditions. Just check the European Union.

[caldrail]

Empires are a group of external territories ruled from the dominant member. That doesn't mean conquest is always the reason for this grouping.

That is an Oxymoron. Peaceful conquest (ie, by bullying) is still conquest.

Quite, but diplomacy and deceipt? We're arguing about your definition of conquest, which for the record I regard as military action for the purpose of hostile occupation. That said, the english language contains a lot of variable meaning and conquest can be applied to any situation where an objective is met. If you really want to.

 

Europe is assembling an empire right under our noses as we speak.

That has been widely discussed in another thread. No evidence has been so far presented of anything remotely like that currently happening. Check it out.

No evidence? Have you watched the tv news or read the papers lately? Its happening. Right now. There are european politicians who want ther stake in a european empire and thy're just not going to let the european public stop them. Its only a matter of time if we all shake our heads or stick them in the sand. Sorry, but I do feel very strongly on this issue.

 

The destruction of an empire can occur for a number of reasons. there is a sort of analogy with biology, in that empires grow, mature, then wither away or get killed off.

Social Darwinism? Anyway, that analogy is fallacious; the "maturing" of a state (Imperial or not), whatever you may mean, is not biological.

Do you need a definition of the word 'analogy'? In any case, you seem to forget the universe functions the way it does because of its fundamental structure. This means that biology will tend to follow certain paths because of the chemistry that underpins it. Since behaviour is part of biology, it too is influenced by the form and enviroment. Since history is the study of the results of human behaviour, we are necessarily studying an analogous subject - although without reference to the medium which produces it - which to my mind is wrong. You can study a subject in isolation and become very knowledgable - but if you don't place that study in context, do you really understand it? A roman pot is found, and someone dates it to a certain period. But what is that pot doing there? What else is there to complete the picture of events at that time in that place, and how does that fit events in the roman world as a whole? This is why context is so important in archaeology. Without it, a great deal of information may be ignored. Therefore, its necessary to place history in context. You can study biology as a life science, as its traditionally taught, or as an extension of the universe and its fundamental rules. Remember - everything is relative.

 

The persians had an empire of sufficient size to create a stand-off with Rome. Although the persians were an advancing society with great wealth, they were also a cruel fuedal regime whose treatment of their common folk was far worse than the romans own.

Your source on this one? Certainly not Christian or Jewish; I don't think even our Roman Quisling "Titus Flavius" Josephus had ever stated something like that.

BTW, Persian socio-economical system would have been considered "semi-feudal" at best.

Its strongly hinted at in one of the osprey titles - "Enemies of Rome - Persia" or something similar. But I accept I know almost diddly-squat about the persians beyond that.

Edited July 15, 2008 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Empires are a group of external territories ruled from the dominant member. That doesn't mean conquest is always the reason for this grouping.

That is an Oxymoron. Peaceful conquest (ie, by bullying) is still conquest.

Quite, but diplomacy and deceipt? We're arguing about your definition of conquest, which for the record I regard as military action for the purpose of hostile occupation. That said, the english language contains a lot of variable meaning and conquest can be applied to any situation where an objective is met. If you really want to.

Here comes the American Heritage Dictionary;

CONQUEST: The act or process of conquering.

CONQUER: v(erb) tr(ansitive): 1.- To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms. 2.-To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms. 3.- To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force: I finally conquered my fear of heights.

 

Subtleties aside, this concept transcends any language: military or not, a conquering country ALWAYS use force, at least in the form of an implicit threat.

That includes diplomacy and deceit; it's still conquering. No country remains under the rule of a weaker one.

Empires are indeed multiple territories ruled from the dominant member. That always means conquest as the reason for this grouping.