Which Empire...

[Stefan the Berserker]

Which of these Empires had deserved most, with hypotetical Reforms that make them modern States, to survive until today? The Collection had been destroyed or failed in the last two Centuries...

#1 Ottoman Empire

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/atlas/maps/ottomans/1815.gif

The Ottomans reformed their State earlyer and it somehow similar to Britains Monarchy, but Islamic.

#2 The Austro-Hungarian Empire

http://www.geocities.com/iturks/assets/images/AustriaHungaryEmpire.gif

Monarchy reformed like in Britain, restricted by Laws. The Memberstates are Reformed too to reflect Ethnicity and the State is now composed of a federal system like the USA.

#3 Grandgerman Empire

http://www.kulmbach.net/~MGF-Gymnasium/bilderdaten/Revolution1848/Bilder/grossdeutsch_kleindt_jpg.jpg

Emperor Wilhelm I wished to conquer Bohemia and Austria aswell, but Bismarck convinced him to to do not do so and allow Austria to survive for the next fifty years...

#4 Napoleon's Empire

http://www.raider66.de/assets/images/napoleons-Empire.gif

The French Republic of 'today' covers the dark Blue Regions, the light Blue ones are Protectorates.

#5 British Empire

http://ecole.wanadoo.fr/college.saintebarbe/victoria/images/carte.jpg

Selfexplaining...

#6 Japanese Empire

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~naso/hist159b/presentations/maps/japaneseempire.jpg

Japanese Victory in the Pacific War, afterwards their policies turn moderate.

#7 Polish Empire

http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/p1634.gif

Poland-Lithuania survived as a Grandpower until today.

#8 Imperial Russia

http://www.ihst.ru/personal/imerz/bound/plate6.jpg

No Sowjets, Multi-Cultural Tzar State reformed...

[Rosacrux redux]

Greek (Alexander's) Empire?

Roman Empire?

Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire?

Spanish colonial Empire?

Portuguese colonial Empire?

Chinese Empire (choose any period but the Ming)?

...and there are many others, as well.

Of all the empires ever, I think the most beneficial to humanity and progres (in the long run, because empire-building is fairly destructive and inhuman in a short run) are:

The short-lived empire of Alexander*
It is the first example of an empire that began by administering cultural fusion, with handpicked elements of all cultures involved, and an empire that spread the Greek culture, science and fine arts to a huge area, paving the road for the Romans to actually "inherit" the largest part of it.

The Roman Empire
The impact of the Roman empire cannot be really measured - it's too huge for conventional measuring.

The British Empire
Almost equally influental to the Roman Empire in every aspect, is the one that shaped the world we live today in.

As for your question, I think none of these empires could (or should) have survived to our days. The days of multinational states (in the central-administrative, central-government sence - the EU is an example of completely decentralized, without a central gov. or administration, neo-empire on the build, but it is not a single political entity yet) are long over, the 20th century belonged to the nation states and only EU is trying to reanimate the multi-national states in the 21st.

Of these you posted, the Grossdeutschland is the most homogenous, so it would've more chances to survive the creation of nation-states. The rest are extremely heterogenous and wouldn't stand a chance.

*alright, alright, I am biased towards that one... so, what? Sue me! ~D

[Stefan the Berserker]

The British Empire
Almost equally influental to the Roman Empire in every aspect, is the one that shaped the world we live today in.

~:confused:

[Rosacrux redux]

If you could elaborate on what you didn't get, I think it will be easier for me to adress your questionmark, nicht so?

[cegorach]

Which of these Empires had deserved most, with hypotetical Reforms that make them modern States, to survive until today? The Collection had been destroyed or failed in the last two Centuries...

#1 Ottoman Empire

>>>> Lack of progress, too many balcan nations eager to regain independence or lost territories.

#2 The Austro-Hungarian Empire

Monarchy reformed like in Britain, restricted by Laws. The Memberstates are Reformed too to reflect Ethnicity and the State is now composed of a federal system like the USA.

>>>>>>> It would be hard to survive, especially because some nationalites had their own states just on the other side of the austrian border. Austrian empire required stability which was hard to save. For example it had to stay neutral and not to involve itself in wars, which was hard to achieve alone.

#3 Grandgerman Empire

Emperor Wilhelm I wished to conquer Bohemia and Austria aswell, but Bismarck convinced him to to do not do so and allow Austria to survive for the next fifty years...

>>>>> Possible, however in my opinion this empire could only take Austria + Bohemia and not much more, otherwise it would became much more likely to implose sooner or later.

#4 Napoleon's Empire

The French Republic of 'today' covers the dark Blue Regions, the light Blue ones are Protectorates.

>>>>>Only if Prussia, Austria and Russia were undermined with re-created Poland and Hungary. It couldn't survive with so many protectorates and enemies.

#5 British Empire

>>>>>> I think it was possible if no 2nd WW was fought.

#6 Japanese Empire

Japanese Victory in the Pacific War, afterwards their policies turn moderate.

>>>>> Like in P.Dick's novel ? I believe it was possible...

#7 Polish Empire

Poland-Lithuania survived as a Grandpower until today.

>>>>>>> The state had everything to survive till now and would survive untill today if:

1. The state was able to survive the period between 1792 and 1797-99 (the rise of Napoleon) we would see the Commonwealth even today - it was decentralised and reformed to achieve this with no doubt.

2. OR
If the ukrainian part was granted with equal rights in the early XVIIth century I think the state would dominated eastern europe until now -
most likely with Hungary, Romania as well as Prussia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine and Crimea inside its borders.
Its political system allowed something like this - with catholic, protestant, orthodox, muslim and jewish population enjoying equal rights, decentralised administration, autonomous and self-governing regions. Actually it isn't difficult to imagine Poland replacing Russia in european balance of power, but in much peaceful manner.

#8 Imperial Russia

No Sowjets, Multi-Cultural Tzar State reformed...

>>>>>> After Stolypin reforms..
Yes it was possible, but we'd see much more terrorists in Europe, especially polish ( polish IRA, but much larger and more powerful - bigger population).




Maybe we could think of alternative history of the world with one of these empires surviving untill now ? What do you think ?
I believe I could post something like this, if I know enough ( so probably Polish Empire, Grand Russia or similar).


My regards Cegorach/Hetman :book:

[MoROmeTe]

1) The Ottomans could not have made it. One reason was the fact the the Balkans were to hard to control. Another is the fact that there was a lot of infighting between individuals for power and that the Ottoman Empire was so descentralized that it could be easily fractured in two or more entities.

2) The Austro Hungarian Empire is a freak o f history. The fact that it had so many nationalities in its borders means that it could not survive. there's no amount of reform that can make Hungarians and Romanians in Transilvania leave side by side in a an empire neither of them controlled.

3) The Grandgerman Empire would have probably had to germanize the other nationalities between its borders but other than that, with reforms that made the state more centralised and with less political infighting, it probably would have been able to make it to modern times.

4) Napoleaon's Empire... was too damn big, had to many places where it was weak. Couldn't have made it.

5) The Brits could have kept their empire, if it wasn't for their lack of will to do so and for the nation/liberty for the people trend they started. They took away their own empire, really.

6) The Japanese empire had no future because Japan didn't have the power to hold it toghether for long periods of time. It was rather conquered and ocuupid teritory than an empire.

7) Polish Lithuanian Empire. Don't know enough about them, but from what I can gather they had the makings for a great empire. Keeping greater Poland, going into Russia and into ukraine and "polonizing" the people they found their, trying to promote the Catholic faith but allowing for religious freedom, they would have had land and resources. Maybe ading Moldavia and Transilvania and even Valahia would have been possible in time. With reforms and without any major catastrphies, The Polish Lithuanian Empire could have survived. And probably this is the one that deserved too.

What do you think of a Thracian/Dacian Empire, streching from the Black Sea to the North of Italy, pushing into Greece and maybe into southern Poland and Austria?

[Baiae]

#5 British Empire

>>>>>> I think it was possible if no 2nd WW was fought.



Actually most historians trace the fall of the British Empire to the end of the First World War, which shifted world economic hegemony to the US

[Stefan the Berserker]

The Confusion is caused through you stated that the British Empire was equal to status with the Roman Empire. But the Roman Empire had no more Rivals, Britain had several dangerous Rivals (France, Russia, Germany).

[Stefan the Berserker]

What do you think of a Thracian/Dacian Empire, streching from the Black Sea to the North of Italy, pushing into Greece and maybe into southern Poland and Austria?

Timeframe last two Centuries. Only modern Empires.

Nazi Empire taken out through I don't want them to be discussed...

[monkian]

Timeframe last two Centuries. Only modern Empires.

Nazi Empire taken out through I don't want them to be discussed...

Then how can you include the Japaneese 'empire' gained in WW2 ?

They murdered, raped and totured the Chineese civiliians without remorse or feeling.

The rape of NanKing ring any bells ?

[Stefan the Berserker]

Because they still were a Constitutional Monarchy of the european style from the 19th Century, like all other Empires stated, and did not change their Laws and Constitution. The Emperor controlled the Country, not Primeminister Tojo Hideki and his Facists Retainers.

So the Japanese would have been able to retun to a moderate policy and even past refoms on the Monarchy that their political system would be strongly like those of Japan today. The NSDAP-Regime in Germany was unable to do this, if they would have won they just installed equal Regimes in other Nations and continued their racial Terror against Jews and Slavs. They did be unable to live in Peace.

Anyway, Japan in WW2 was doing just the same Imperialist policies as all european Nations and the USA did in the 19th Century and WW1. The Japanese expansion policy in WW2 is identical to those of WW1, when they put their selves on the Side of the 'Allies'.

In WW1 they recognised that Germany would loose the War and joined the Entente to grasp German Territories in Asia, thus were Tsingtao, the Marshall Islands and german 'Influencial Zones' in China. During the first and second Sino-Japanese-War Japan attempted to conquer China, partly with Succsess. In WW2 France and the Netherlands collapsed and in 1941 they expected Britain would be defeated as well, so they attempted a large Militery Strike to take their Colonies at a minium of Risk.

The Plan failed because they went on too much Risk, Britain did not fall and the Roosevelts support of Britain's Asia-Policies forced them to fight Great Britain, British-India, Australia and the USA at one time.* That was out of limit to Japan's Militery and Econnomic Power, which caused their defeat.

If they had not declared war on the USA and Great Britain, instead had boosted their efford in China, did not join the Axis Pact and would have claimed the Colonies of practically no more existant France and Holland they would have got what they wanted. Smaller bait, but still pretty good.

Through Great Britain would have not declared War on Japan, through their own struggles in Europe, if Japan had attacked those Territories. The USA and the Soviet Union wouldn't have done either.

But as said, too much on one Strike.

*In Case of Japans declaration of War against the British Empire, the USA would have probalby joined up the Allies aswell through the danger of Japanese agression against the Phillipines (US-Protectorate). So they thaugt they did have to make the first move and destroy the american Navy in the Pacific, hopeing that the USA would try to cheasefire after beeing unable to defend the west coast. But yet again, it just didn't happen as planned.


They murdered, raped and totured the Chineese civiliians without remorse or feeling.

Like any other Imperialist Nation did with the victims of their Expansion. What was Britain doing in India, what was France doing in Algeria, what was Russia doing in Poland, what did the USA do with native Americans? Equally the same, just earlier in timeframe. In the later Timeframe you have Dejavu and the USA makes the same in Vietnam, which the Japanese captured in WW2.

I think the Opion you have is caused through:

A) Japan allied itself with Nazi Germany and is this way by wrong thaugt to be politically equal.

B) The Imerialism of Japan happened in the 20th Century intead of the 18nd and 19th Century.

[Ar7]

Imperial Russia deserved it the most to survive, and they would have survived if given just a couple of years more time for the reforms to finish and if they didn't join WW1.

The Russian revolution had the most impact on the world, the forming of the USSR, the Cold War. Perhaps if there was no Stalin, then Hitler would not have dared to start WW2. The Imperial Russia would never have signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and thus Hitler would not have attacked without a mostly safe eastern border.

Globalization would have begun earlier, since there would not have been any iron curtain.

[monkian]

Because they still were a Constitutional Monarchy of the european style from the 19th Century, like all other Empires stated, and did not change their Laws and Constitution. The Emperor controlled the Country, not Primeminister Tojo Hideki and his Facists Retainers.

So the Japanese would have been able to retun to a moderate policy and even past refoms on the Monarchy that their political system would be strongly like those of Japan today. The NSDAP-Regime in Germany was unable to do this, if they would have won they just installed equal Regimes in other Nations and continued their racial Terror against Jews and Slavs. They did be unable to live in Peace.

Anyway, Japan in WW2 was doing just the same Imperialist policies as all european Nations and the USA did in the 19th Century and WW1. The Japanese expansion policy in WW2 is identical to those of WW1, when they put their selves on the Side of the 'Allies'.

In WW1 they recognised that Germany would loose the War and joined the Entente to grasp German Territories in Asia, thus were Tsingtao, the Marshall Islands and german 'Influencial Zones' in China. During the first and second Sino-Japanese-War Japan attempted to conquer China, partly with Succsess. In WW2 France and the Netherlands collapsed and in 1941 they expected Britain would be defeated as well, so they attempted a large Militery Strike to take their Colonies at a minium of Risk.

The Plan failed because they went on too much Risk, Britain did not fall and the Roosevelts support of Britain's Asia-Policies forced them to fight Great Britain, British-India, Australia and the USA at one time.* That was out of limit to Japan's Militery and Econnomic Power, which caused their defeat.

If they had not declared war on the USA and Great Britain, instead had boosted their efford in China, did not join the Axis Pact and would have claimed the Colonies of practically no more existant France and Holland they would have got what they wanted. Smaller bait, but still pretty good.

Through Great Britain would have not declared War on Japan, through their own struggles in Europe, if Japan had attacked those Territories. The USA and the Soviet Union wouldn't have done either.

But as said, too much on one Strike.

*In Case of Japans declaration of War against the British Empire, the USA would have probalby joined up the Allies aswell through the danger of Japanese agression against the Phillipines (US-Protectorate). So they thaugt they did have to make the first move and destroy the american Navy in the Pacific, hopeing that the USA would try to cheasefire after beeing unable to defend the west coast. But yet again, it just didn't happen as planned.



Like any other Imperialist Nation did with the victims of their Expansion. What was Britain doing in India, what was France doing in Algeria, what was Russia doing in Poland, what did the USA do with native Americans? Equally the same, just earlier in timeframe. In the later Timeframe you have Dejavu and the USA makes the same in Vietnam, which the Japanese captured in WW2.

I think the Opion you have is caused through:

A) Japan allied itself with Nazi Germany and is this way by wrong thaugt to be politically equal.

B) The Imerialism of Japan happened in the 20th Century intead of the 18nd and 19th Century.


I'll think you'll find Britain was alot less harsh to the Indians than the Japaneese were to the Chineese or the French were to the Spanish.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A note to the British Empire map: New Guinea was part of the German Empire until WWII, when troops from Austrailia and New Zealand siezed and never returned it. To my knowledge it was never British.

[AntiochusIII]

Erm... to point out a small mistake in the British empire map: the small area between Burma and Malaysia remains independent in a feudal kingdom-state of Siam. The British DO have influence in the area but the kings of Siam claims these areas as their vassals.. and was agreed by Britain as they want to keep the peaceful kingdom alive as the French were just at the other side of Siam at the time...

[lancelot]

Well, obviously I am biased but a continued British Empire, I dont think it would have been a bad thing.

Considering that many British territories were being groomed for self-governance anyway and in most cases were a stabilising element in the territoires. Just take a look at what happened in India the minute we left...

The Brits actually invested in their territores. Eg UK invested £300mil (1800's values) in India..roads, rails etc. Can many/any empires claim the same?




The Emperor controlled the Country

Hardly. The military were in firm control of wartime policy.

[PanzerJaeger]

Grossdeutschland..

[Suebius]

Leaving out the Nazis is ridiculous. Hey, I have Jewish heritage, Lithuanian and Ukrainian, but this has nothing to do with that.

By leaving them out, you are ignoring the political and sociological truths that all empires are governed in the same way, and that ethnic-nationalism and therefore racism has played a part in all of them. To leave them, and the Soviets, out, but include the Ottomans and Japanese, is to forgive them for the Armenian genocide and brutal occupation of Korea and China. It excuses all of the European powers for their own brutal treatment of their African and Asian subjects. And my own empire, America, is no exception.

[Stefan the Berserker]

The Day after Tommorow we'll get anyway our Grossdeutschesreich-Britishempire-Francaise somewhat called the European Union as a Sate! ~;)

Can't wait for Worlddomination!