On the thread about why did Germany lose the war, MMarsh said:

I think the primary reason Germany Lost was due to the same reason that the Kaiser, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and even eventually the Roman Empire (although it took considerable longer). Simply that their megomanic leader whose misplaced feeling of invincibilty caused them to overextend themselves. The fronts became too far from home, there were neither enough men nor supplies to cover the distance and that they had made too many enemies and not enough reliable Allies.

This has got me thinking of the wider picture. Has there ever been a country that has held a successful empire, and in what sense is empire meaningful? To answer this we must think how long does one have to hold other countries? Also when is an empire truly an empire, when the occupied peoples are subjugated and taxed beyond their will?

The Roman Empire lasted for the best part of a thousand years, however things moved slowly in those days and perhaps we can say it is comparable with the 100 - 200 year rule of the British and Russian Empires with faster transport and communications. It seems to me that all empires must eventually disintegrate, this is because people in far off countries will gradually require greater autonomy and feel less willing to support a far off central government without the resources to subjugate them. Another way empires disintegrate is that the occupiers become part of the indigenous population, often because they feel separate from the mother country and prefer their own location and lifestyle. This happened with the Mongols, and to some extent the Vikings (which included the Norman’s). This may also have happened with the other tribes from East Europe and Asia. Some believe that the Anglo-Saxon ‘invasion’ of England was more integration with the Celts than conquering or genocide.

So are their any successful empires nowadays? In what sense is America and China a country or empire? Perhaps they have held together due to a common feeling of political and cultural identity although in the latter case there has been a great deal of military dictatorship to encourage cohesion. In America perhaps it has been the ability to find new land to the West combined with a successful economic system (for most) that has allowed cohesion. Even in this case many recent immigrant peoples feel alienated and separate from the community sometimes not even speaking the same language and of course even America almost split apart during their civil war. Perhaps America holds a successful world empire by stealth by exporting its culture through commerce, media and language through the means of globalisation, perhaps even the British Empire still exists in this sense?

If a multi-national company is the main source of employment and pay for a large number of citizens in the local community and only provide a token wage in return for their hard work, can this truly be called freedom for those workers? What is the difference between this and slavery or subjugation by empire rulers? Of course factory work is probably preferable to the original farming or unemployment or else they wouldn’t do it. Here we have a classic case of ‘what did the Romans do for us?’ If true, have corporations simply replaced governments in empire building? If so, do those countries that tax and largely host these corporations still hold empires by stealth? Will even these ‘empires’ disintegrate in the same way to those of old?

This is a great question, I must go away and think about it. Meanwhile, don't under-estimate Decadence.

Would the various world wide religions (Islam, Catholicism) fall into the "empire" definition?

Well the Russian Empire did not last that long either. In this modern world that we live in the speed of change has increased enormously. Now with all the illegal immigration into the Southern States of America can you see them reverting to the original owners by same way that America came by them

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Now with all the illegal immigration into the Southern States of America can you see them reverting to the original owners by same way that America came by them

What the native (Red) Indians?

Surprising there hasn't been a legal claim for that!

Originally Posted by Del Boy

This is a great question, I must go away and think about it. Meanwhile, don't under-estimate Decadence.

Ahhh,... Decadence. It was certainly mooted to have played a part in the fall of the Roman Empire, and in my opinion it is coming into effect in many first world countries of today.

The snivel libertarians of course will pooh pooh this suggestion, but one only has to look about them to see the way that our lives are heading under the effects of such things as Political Correctness.

Parents can't punish their own children.
Judges are more frightened of encroaching on the rights of the guilty than those against whom crimes have been committed.
People want to fight for such things as the right to have hardcore porn available to children on the internet.
The first consideration of anyone is "cover your a*se", rather than a just outcome in any situation.
No one wants to be responsible for their own behaviour.

It goes on and on and on. We are certainly on the slippery slope.

We need to define what we mean by 'empire', or this thread could easily run away on a million different tangents.

The Ottomans did, for a long time.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

We need to define what we mean by 'empire', or this thread could easily run away on a million different tangents.

This is a problem. Taxation without benefits to the locality often leads to revolt, but this is the case within many coherent cultures and countries. Taxation without representation is another version of this, but few people were allocated a vote in the past, and even today what happens if your minority cannot attain any realistic amount of power via the vote?

I suppose in the past there have been quite blatant invasions of other peoples and lands without the consent or any direct benefit to the peoples who live on them. In this we cannot include the indirect benefits of trade or commerce. Hence the British/Americans invaded the native Red Indian lands etc by this definition. The Red Indian population were partly exterminated, but also overtaken by the sheer growth of 'immigrants' (interesting way of putting it?), and the same with the Spanish in Latin America. Hence these were 'successful' invasions and perhaps these could be called modern day empires?

The prerequisite for a successful empire seems to be the relative dominance in terms of population of the new influx, although in most cases this influx split off from the mother country to form an independent government. Perhaps a modern day equivalent was the invasion of German East Prussia by Russia in WW2, very few of the original Germans now remain although I am not sure how they came to be there in the first place.

I would define an 'empire' as a civilization that holds dominance, economically, politically and culturally, over its neighbours. It doesn't necessarily have to have a population dimension, although often this will be present. Thus modern day America is an empire because it is very dominant in the 3 areas described above. It has achieved conquest through economic assistance (dollars), politics in terms of the blunting of communism and export of liberal market policies and culture in the export of movies, music and television, although it is gradually losing its influence and will probably decline in the next few decades. So, for the moment, the USA is a current, successful empire.

To define how long an empire must exist to be termed 'successful' in the long term is another matter. The Macedonian Empire under Alexander only existed for a few short years at the maximum extent of its influence, but it was clearly successful as we still talk about it over 2000 years later. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer and again we still talk about it. So is length of empire really important?

I think not. An empire can be termed to be successful if its influence stands the test of time. The Russian Empire for example lasted nearly 200 years and was one of the largest empires in history but where is its influence today? Very quickly, I would define the following examples of successful and unsuccessful empires:

Successful Empires:

Current USA (for now)
Macedonian Empire
Roman Empire
British Empire

Unsuccessful Empires:

German 3rd Reich
Russian Empire
Aztec Empire

A pretty rough and ready list but this topic is massive and I could spend days writing about it that I don't have.