perseus
Active member
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?
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?