The Course of Empire

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

As we have discussed on that other thread, there are still some remnants of the previous particular Empires of four individual members of the EU (France, Demark, Netherlands and UK).

Those territories are not dependent from the EU as a whole and I suppose you're not talking about them

 

Which specific external territories are under the rule of the European Union as a whole entity?

No one has been quoted yet on the other thread.

That's required by your own definition of an Empire.

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Under the widest possible definition, any Human act is Biology. Under the same kind of definitions, everything is Physics. I was certainly not contending such axioms.

ANALOGY (ibid): Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

 

Your analogy is fallacious because there's no State's equivalent (Empires included) to the predictable and well defined biological maturating process that defines any living being (BTW, that's the main explanation of why viruses are not currently considered "living beings").

 

For example, you can't define if which step of his "vital cycle" is any political entity at any particular moment; let's say the United States or the European Union; are they today on their "infancy" or their "senescence"?

In fact, the "death" of any state or Empire is not a pre-determined absolute. And there's no reason why it must be irreversible.

No predictable cyclic pattern has been determined for the Empires' "life".

The use of all these biological terms in politics is a metaphor, not a true analogy.

[Northern Neil]

Empires are indeed multiple territories ruled from the dominant member.

For much of its time though, the Roman Empire did not have a fixed capital or a dominant territory. During the third and early fourth centuries it was not centred on anywhere in particular, and Maxentius unsuccessfully fought for Rome to once again become the dominant political centre. Constantinople as the capital of a dominate period empire addressed this to a degree, but with the (final) division of the Empire, once again the western half lingered on for another few decades without a fixed home territory, at times having Milan as its centre, at others Ravenna.

 

Again, the Germany of the Kaisers runs against this - there was no dominant territory (unless you stretch a point and regard it as Prussia) because the Empire consisted just of Germany. Other similar entities include the Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Trebizond and the Bulgarian Empire.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Empires are indeed multiple territories ruled from the dominant member.

For much of its time though, the Roman Empire did not have a fixed capital or a dominant territory. During the third and early fourth centuries it was not centred on anywhere in particular, and Maxentius unsuccessfully fought for Rome to once again become the dominant political centre. Constantinople as the capital of a dominate period empire addressed this to a degree, but with the (final) division of the Empire, once again the western half lingered on for another few decades without a fixed home territory, at times having Milan as its centre, at others Ravenna.

 

Again, the Germany of the Kaisers runs against this - there was no dominant territory (unless you stretch a point and regard it as Prussia) because the Empire consisted just of Germany. Other similar entities include the Empire of Nicaea, Empire of Trebizond and the Bulgarian Empire.

Salve, NN.

As Romanophiles, we are always at risk of this kind of confusion between these two quite different acceptions of the word "Empire".

 

My quotation here (actually a little modified secondary quotation from Caldrail) corresponds to the politico-administrative definition; it's from here where th concept of "Imperialism" derive.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

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

 

The other definition is nobiliary; "the territory ruled by an Emperor". Now, being "Emperor" a regnal title (the same as Negus, Tlatoani, Khan or Shah), its definition for any individual ruler is ultimately arbitrary. Napoleon Bonaparte became "Emperor of France" just because he liked this title more than "King".

 

Of course, both definitions then to coincide, but that's not always the case.

 

On the first definition, the Roman Republic extended its Empire over all the Mediterranean world, beginning at least since the capture of Veies circa CCCLVIII AUC / 396 BC, even if it wasn't ruled by Emperors.

 

On the second definition, the territory ruled by the last Roman ("Byzantine") Emperors of the Palaiologos Dynasty was still an "empire", even if only Constantinople, its surrounding area and (to some extent) the Despotate of Morea were included.

 

It's easy to see that at first for the II Reich (Germany of the Kaisers) just the second definition fitted (until they got their overseas colonies), the same as Nicae, Trebizond and Bulgaria. A fixed capital is irrelevant by any definition; the "single supreme authority", even with a nice regnal title, can perfectly be nomad, as Genghis Khan wa

[caldrail]

Then we agree to differ, since you prefer the wider meaning.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Then we agree to differ, since you prefer the wider meaning.

Salve. C.

 

Sorry if I got lost: in what exactly do we agree to differ, since I prefer the wider meaning?