Kevin's Watch

The current UK government likes apologizing.

Don't get me wrong, they don't like apologizing for anything that THEY'VE done, but they like apologizing for things that happened historically, during the days of the British Empire. Which I've always felt is a bit silly, applying our moral standards to people who lived hundreds of years ago.

I've always thought (and please don't tell my Irish friends!!!!) that as far as empires went, the brits weren't the worst by a long stretch. But then again, history is not my speciality.

So, if we were to apply today's morality to history, which historic empires were the best and the worse? To quote a classic, "What have the Romans ever done for us" - did the education and aquaducts and medicine etc balance out the crucifixions and decimations? How did the Mongols compare to the Spanish or the Dutch, or the Aztecs or Incas? Did the Persians deserve to be slandered in '300'? Were the Ottoman's any better? Does Austro-Hungary actually count as an empire, or the Holy Roman? Does America's sphere of influence today classify as an 'empire'?

Stonemaybe,

Does America's sphere of influence today classify as an 'empire'?

Great question. I've read a fair amount about this. It seems that modern historians and scholars debate this question frequently. I would say that America is certainly our modern empire. First of all, the creation of the geographic United States was based on an imperialist doctrine of ousting European powers and destroying Native American civilizations. Next, since World War II, the United States has had troops stationed in countries from Korea to Saudi Arabia, amounting to a kind of pressure on those governments that is gentler than, say, Imperial Britain's. US foreign ventures from Viet Nam to Granada involved military intervention to further US economic and geopolitical goals. This is imperialist to the extreme. The US does not invade countries and then absorb them into our borders. This would not be allowed in the postcolonial era. Instead, the US invades countries and sets up domestic governments that would acquiesce to us. No US official would ever refer to our nation as an "empire," and it is a republic in name and governance, but actions speak louder than terminology.

The Soviet Union was a sort of empire wasn't it? They were a dodgy bunch.

And does Nazi Germany count? They owned and controlled a fair few countries during the thirties and fourties. They also happened to exterminate 6'000'000 people during that time period-not to mention the countless others that died.

Of those already mentioned I always think of the Mongols as being pretty nasty and ruthless. I'm not sure what legacy they left in terms of culture or art.

Marvin wrote:And does Nazi Germany count? They owned and controlled a fair few countries during the thirties and fourties.

Germany itself is an empire - a union of the various German states, except Austria and maybe one or two smaller ones. Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, etc formed the German Empire, as it was initially known.

By that definition, the USA would also be an empire.

Marvin wrote:

Of those already mentioned I always think of the Mongols as being pretty nasty and ruthless. I'm not sure what legacy they left in terms of culture or art.

I decided to look into this, because for some reason i always had the opposite impression. I have to say i got that impression from fiction rather than factual books.

OK here's all the positives I can glean:

The key factor in the Mongol success, however, was the magnificent army that Chingis created. Unlike the armies of their opponents, where birth usually determined rank, promotion in the Mongol army was by merit only.

However:

..The Mongols also committed horrific atrocities, systematically creating terror to sap their enemies will to resist. This persuaded many Turks, Uighurs, Kipchaks, and Chinese to defect to the Mongols rather than risk defeat.

and:

The period of the Mongols expansion had few beneficial results: they destroyed more than they built. The most sophisticated civilisations of the time - the Muslim and the Chinese - suffered the worst. The Abbasid caliphate of Baghdad, spiritual, cultural and (for much of the time) political leader of the Muslim world since the 8th Century, was overthrown. The ancient cities of central Asia were devastated and never recovered their former prosperity. Depopulation and the englect of irrigation channels meant that most of Iraq and West Persia was reduced to desert for almost two centuries. Northern China suffered depopulation and the Mongol conquest isolated Russia from the mainstream of European development for almost two centuries. ........ Eventually Christendom benefited from the Mongol conquests in Asia, as Muslim control of the silk route ended and the way was opened for westerners such as Marco Polo to travel to east Asia for the first time.

(Quotes from Atlas of World History published by Sandcastle Books)

So +1 for the meritocracy but points lost for atrocities, culture, and conservation? (Though you could argue that the atrocities were a form of 'Shock and Awe' that actually prevented more casualties in the long run)

I always found the Mongols to be a pretty terrifying bunch. I mean, how would you like to stumble across a pyramid of heads of the townspeople you were going to visit?

The Mongols, specifically Ghengiz, founded a great Chinese dynasty that endured for a long time, produced works of art and etc...

Anyway, Yeah, I agree with LM that, effectively if nothing else, the US is our modern Empire. And yeah, I would include the old USSR and Nazi Germany as well...except of course they're gone and the US isn't. Yet.

--A

Avatar wrote:Anyway, Yeah, I agree with LM that, effectively if nothing else, the US is our modern Empire.

Huh, I managed to overlook that entire post. Don't know how I did that.

It's an excellent post, Lord Mhoram.

Sorry, but SM's quote "What have the Romans ever done for us?" make me laugh my ass off and find this quote:

REG
They bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had. And not just from us, but from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers.

LORETTA
And from our fathers', fathers', fathers.

REG
Yeah.

LORETTA
And from our fathers', fathers', fathers', fathers.

REG
Yeah, all right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?

XERXES
The aqueduct?

REG
What?

XERXES
The aqueduct.

REG
Oh yeah, yeah. They did give us that. That's true, yeah.

UNNECESSARY
And sanitation.

LORETTA
Oh yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.

REG
Yeah, all right, I'll grant you the aqueduct, the sanitation are two things
the Romans have done...

MATTHIAS
And the roads.

REG
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads, I mean the roads go without saying, don't
they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads...

VESTIGIAL
Irrigation.

XERXES
Medicine.

EXPENDABLE
Education.

REG
Yeah, yeah, all right. Fair enough...

SUPERFLUOUS
And the wine.

PFJ
Ohhhh yeah...

FRANCIS
Yeah. Yeah, That's something that we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left,
huh?

UNNEEDED
Public baths.

LORETTA
And it's safe to walk the in streets at night now, Reg.

FRANCIS
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it, the only ones
who could in a place like this! (indicating them)

PFJ
(general agreement)

REG (irritated)
All right. But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine,
public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public
health... What have the Romans ever done for us?

XERXES
Brought peace?

REG
Oh, peace... SHADDAP!

Thanks, Avatar and CovJr. If you guys want to see a good debate on imperialism in the 20th century, YouTube the Chomsky-Buckley televised debate, where they discuss positive foreign interventions. Buckley says that they can exist and Chomsky, of course, says that they don't. Chomsky calls America "imperialist" in the videos. As for Nazi Germany and the USSR: I would say they certainly were empires, undeniably.

Stonemaybe wrote:

So, if we were to apply today's morality to history, which historic empires were the best and the worse?

This is the biggest problem when looking at history. Many historians and laymen apply today's morals to history and we just cannot do that because today's morals are far different from history's morals.

Let me give you an example: Persecution of Jews and women as witches in pre-modern Europe. Because the plague devasted the population generation after generation, Europeans truly believed that they were being punished by God for their sins. So, they targeted those who appeared to be outside of the Christian (Catholic) faith - Jews and women on the outskirts of society. They therefore, were striving to please God and live by the Christian (Catholic) doctrine by forcing those people to conform to Christianity.

The problem begins with misinterpreting this when we apply today's morals to this situation. Many laymen use these persecutions to illustrate that Christianity is a violent religion. In all actuality, the people of pre-modern Europe were convinced that they were doing the right and proper thing but we look upon it today as horrific and unjust.

I agree with LM that the United States is the current empire. And if you really want to get technical, we could be referred to as an extension of the Roman Empire, because we are a Christian country, the official religion of Ancient Rome, as well as having adopted much of their governmental practices. art. literature, law. Really, the Roman Empire never completely dissolved. Rather, it changed into the Holy Roman Empire and influenced all of Europe and in turn, the U.S.

As far as which Empires were the best, my particular vote would be for Rome.

It is interesting to note that Rome began not as wanting to expand necessarily. Rome came to power by defensive wars and defending allies.
Roman tradition did not recognize more territory as a justification for war and success in battle showed the favor of the gods. Rome never rushed into war. They always calmly deliberated before acting.

It was horrific and unjust by any standards. But yes, I'll grant you that most of the people believed that they were doing gods will. Of course, only the priests and monks and whatnot could read back then, especially latin, so they were really doing what the church told them gods will was.

Far too often the realer reasons were the pay tht "witchfinders" got, the share in the possessions of the condemned that accusers could claim, and just plain petty spite and revenge, on the part of everybody from priests to neighbours.

--A

That is quite true, Av. As a matter of fact, Joan of Arc was tried as a witch for revenge purposes. The English were terrified of her.