When in history...

[Gazius]

When in history did the first real empires start appearing, in the Indo-european region. I think that's right. From Britain to North Africa and from Gades to the further reaches of eastern India. If one wanted a RTS modelling the rise from the city states to the fullest might of the Roman Empire, how far back could you go? 1200 BC? And I mean, potential for empire, not just, there's pharoahs in Egypt, a Egyptian empire, not in history, but in the furthest stretch of the imagination, could have waged war with another empire, perhaps the spartan empire, or Athenian, or a earlier greek empire? What about in Africa, Gaul, and Iberia? Was there enough people in these regions to really make an empire?

I guess, to really boil it down, if someone were to make a mod on a miniscale, say the Iberian peninsula, and the hypothetical rise of a single nation there, when could it happen? Or are there truly massive barriers in history that prevented this from happening?

[Bootsiuv]

Historical empires
Early empires
Elamite Empire (c. 2700 BC - 539 BC)
Akkadian Empire (c. 2350 BC - 2150 BC)
Ur III Empire (c. 2100 BC - 2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (c. 1900 BC - 1600 BC)
Egyptian Empire (1550 BC - 1070 BC)
Hittite Empire (c. 1460 BC - 1180 BC)
Phoenicia Empire (1200BC-800BC)
Israelite Empire (1050 BC - 920 BC)
Assyrian Empire (c. 900 BC - 612 BC)
Carthaginian Empire (c. 814 BC - 146 BC)
Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire, c. 550 BC - 330 BC)
Magadhan Empire (500 BC - 300/139 BC?)
Macedonian Empire (c. 338 BC - 309 BC)
Mauryan Empire (321 BC - 185 BC)
Seleucid Empire (323 BC - 60 BC)
Chinese Empire (221 BC - AD 1912) (Various inter-Imperial periods excluded)
Parthian Empire (c. 200 BC – AD 224)
Roman Empire (241 BC - AD 476)
First millennium AD
Sassanian Empire (224 - 651)
Palmyrene Empire (260 – 272)
Teotihuacano Empire (300 BC - 600/700)
Gupta Empire (320 - 550)
Tiahuanaco Empire (500-1000)
Aksumite Empire (ca. 200 - 1974; becomes Zagwe dynasty, then Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia)
Byzantine Empire (323* - 1453) (*actual date disputed)
Frankish Empire (c. 509 – 843)
Srivijaya Empire (c. 300 - 1300s)
Tibetan Empire (c. 600s – 1000s)
Arab Empire (c. 630 - 1258)
Bulgarian Empire (681 - 1018; 1185 - 1396)
Chalukya Empire (c. 543 - c. 1189)
Rashtrakuta Empire (735 – 982)
Chola Empire (800s - 1200s)
Venetian Empire (800s - 1797)
Khmer Empire (802 - 1462)
Great Moravian Empire (833 - 900s)
Norman Empire (911 - 1100s)
Ghana Empire (c. 900 - 1240)
Tu'i Tonga Empire (950 – 1875?)
Ghaznavid Empire (963 - 1187)
Baekjae Empire
Goguryeo Empire (37 BCE - 668)
Balhae Empire (698 - 926)
Vietnamese Empire (938? - 1945)
Early second millennium AD
Hoysala Empire (1026 – 1343)
Seljuk Empire (c. 1037 - 1194)
Kongo Empire (c. 1100 - c. 1884)
Latin Empire (1204 – 1261)
Mongol Empire (1206 - 1502)
Majapahit Empire (1293 - c. 1500)
Mali Empire (1235 - 1645)
Serbian Empire (1345 - 1371)
Vijayanagara Empire (c. 1336 - 1650)
Siam Empire (1350 – c. 1909)
Aztec Empire (1375 - 1521)
Golden Horde (1378 - 1502)
Songhai Empire (1400s - 1500s)
Timurid Empire (1401 - 1505)
Incan Empire (1438 - 1533)
Early to middle second millennium AD
Danish colonial empire (1200s - 1953)
Hungarian Empire (1000 - 1918)
Ottoman Empire (1281 - 1923)
Portuguese Empire (1415 - 1999)
Spanish Empire (1492 - present) [8]
Late second millennium AD
British Empire (1607 - present)[9]
Safavid Empire (1502-1722)
Mughal Empire (1526 - 1857)
Swedish Empire (1561 - 1878)
French colonial empires (c. 1605 - present)[10]
French Empire (1804–1814 or 1815, 1852–1870)
Dutch Empire (1620 - present)[11]
Maratha Empire (1674 - 1761)
Russian Empire (1721 - 1917)
Zulu Empire (1837 - 1897)
Austrian Empire (1804 - 1867)
Mexican Empire (1822 - 1823, 1864 - 1867)
Brazilian Empire (1822 - 1889)
Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867 - 1918)
German Empire (1871 - 1918)
German colonial empire (1884 - 1918)
Japanese Empire (1871 - 1945)
Italian Empire (1885 - 1943)
Korean Empire (1897 - 1910)
20th century AD
Belgian Empire (1901 – 1962)
Soviet Union (1917/1922 – 1991)
Nazi Germany (1933 – 1945)
Central African Empire (1977 – 1979)
21st century empires
American empire (1898 – present) {Status disputed}[12]
Eurosphere (1995 – present)[13]
Source: Wikipedia, "Empires"

Does that help? You asked what the earliest empires were, that's every empire in history, courtesy of Wikipedia.

[Cash Staks]

:bow:

Well done. That's quite a few empires.

I recall an early empire in India (I think it was India but I'm not quite certain), that one of my history professors discussed. Keep in mind I'm an Accountancy major. This one predated many empires apparently. I do remember the professor saying that archeologists found it astonishing that cities with this sort of structure were found so early in history. It suggested the use of irrigation. In any case, I can't remember the date of this empire nor the location so this is of no use I guess. I do know that it predated many of the typical empires that people know of and it was relatively short lived. Or I could just be completely wrong :laugh4:

[blitzkrieg80]

what about the Minoans and the Myceneans for that matter?

The Huns and Khazars formed something of an empire in the usual advanced notion of khan and khaganate along the steppe.

the Gothic title Reiks (borrowed from Celtic rix) very much implies an advanced concept of kingship and overlordship of multiple peoples and sub-rulers on par with empire, such as that under Ermanarik.

Come to think of it now... what exactly is the criterion for "empire" for this thread? It surely isn't the title Imperator or "General" and it also isn't the idea of Principate and status as "First Citizen." Many of those listed, such as the Normans probably shouldn't qualify. A successful kingship which stretchs far and encompasses different peoples is still a kingship... there is an important distinction between regules and rex... thus, concept of government and authority of the "emperor" over his sub-kings becomes an important determination. The language of the titles used by those empires become more important than our English translation... Austria (Osterreich) and France (Frankreich) are still called "Empires" in the Modern German names for those countries, while Russia is not, and if anything these days, Russia is still more of an empire than either of those. the Persian shāhanshāh "king of kings" might be the first true emperor in that the title actually meant more than the title of those before... it is not enough to simply have territory and power, language and perception must also recognize the uniqueness of that position in contrast of those under it

[Thaatu]

Empire is a pretty loose term. I guess it has something to do with subjucating other nations with force. Even the "trading empire" of the Canaanites must have used military power to clear a spot for their colonies, but sometimes not.

[artavazd]

I think empire would be the control of area territory outside of ones ethnic boundries. If its withing the ethnic boundries than I consider it a kingdom.

[kambiz]

@Bootsiuv
I think you (Or wiki infact) missed the Median empire or
Shahan Shahi'e Mad

[Zaknafien]

Don't forget about the Harappan civilisation in modern India. Id even place the beginning of empires before that. Someone built the Pyramids, after all you know, in about what, 2611 BCE? That list is flawed too, I briefly glanced at it, but there was never a such thing as an "Israelite Empire".

[blitzkrieg80]

ethnic boundaries? there's a loose term... in fact, before the rise of nationalism, that would make no sense to many throughout the world... indentity is an important and often overlooked factor in the development of state and history... for example, the British Empire was not called so simply because of Wales and Cornwall, even though their ethnicity would be technically different... Empire is actually a word misused throughout history, when in should be closer indentified with the elements that made it unique in a world of diverse kingships in the first place. The Romans were not the first, but they certainly defined the language.

I thought Israelite Empire seemed a little odd too... in fact, I bet that was added by a proud certain someone (not anyone here) with an agenda, going unchallenged until someone says "what the," as Wikipedia usually goes...

[artavazd]

ethnic boundaries? there's a loose term... in fact, before the rise of nationalism, that would make no sense to many throughout the world... indentity is an important and often overlooked factor in the development of state and history... for example, the British Empire was not called so simply because of Wales and Cornwall, even though their ethnicity would be technically different... Empire is actually a word misused throughout history, when in should be closer indentified with the elements that made it unique in a world of diverse kingships in the first place. The Roman's were not the first, but they certainly defined the language.

I thought Israelite Empire seemed a little odd too... in fact, I bet that was added by a proud certain someone (not anyone here) with an agenda, going unchallenged until someone says "what the," as Wikipedia usually goes...


there were cases of nationalism before the 19th century. in the 5th century AD during the Armeno-Persian wars many refrences were made to the fatherland and faith.

[Sarkiss]

I thought Israelite Empire seemed a little odd too... in fact, I bet that was added by a proud certain someone (not anyone here) with an agenda, going unchallenged until someone says "what the," as Wikipedia usually goes...
:laugh4:
hey, where is Armenian empire of Tigran the Great?

[Bootsiuv]

Come to think about it, that list also doesn't include the Athenian Empire, short-lived as it was. Maybe it isn't every empire in history.

[Cash Staks]

Come to think about it, that list also doesn't include the Athenian Empire, short-lived as it was. Maybe it isn't every empire in history.

Well, as some have said, empire is a pretty loose term. So I'm sure there would be much debate between people as to what constitutes an empire and then what "empires" could actually be called such.

[Benandorf]

That's a long list of Empires! And it's mildly depressing that the majority of human history was just broken down into about 50 lines...

[bovi]

Human history is only about empires :inquisitive:?

[Bootsiuv]

Well, not only about empires....but I'd say they've played a pretty central role in people's lives for most of recorded history.

BTW, wasn't there an Israelite Empire around 900 BCE?

[Zaknafien]

No, there wasnt. Recent archaeology has disproven most of the claims laid out in the Torah about the 'kingdoms' of David and Solomon. Jerusalem in the era was really only a backwater town with no real influence, while the Kingdom of Israel in the north was somewhat stronger, but still only a local power. In reality the Egyptians controlled most of that territory for centuries into the supposed time of the Israelite kings.

[fallen851]

Human history is only about empires :inquisitive:?

When you live in the United States, where everything is about being bigger and better than everyone, yes.

If you live in Norway, whose power hasn't been great for a long time, probably not.

[Bootsiuv]

Why would you feel the need to take a crack at the US? Isn't there enough of that in the political mudpit on TWC? Go over there and do that stuff....let's leave the US bashing for another forum, yes?

BTW, have you ever been to America? I assume your from Norway. I do so love how people from Europe just think they know everything about us....I've heard so many stereotypes about the american people, it's getting really old.

@Zaknafien

Oh, really? That's very interesting. Thanks for your help! :)

[Sassem]

@Bootsiuv

Belgian Empire (1901 – 1962)

Wow Yesterday on the news I heard they ha(ve)d political problems something between the Vlamingen and the Waloniers (sp) I know the news is lagging a little bit behind but 45 years thats a bit too much

Do I miss something or can I drive down there and put my flag in the ground

[Bovarius]

Sassem, try us!

We kicked you out once, we'll do it again:charge:

And the troubles in Belgium are just something that has been a problem from the start of Belgium. Its quiet normal that a country in which you have 2 different people speaking two different languages (Vlamingen and Walen) you can have issues. But politicians can sometimes blow the matters so much up, together with the media that it looks like a country is falling apart. If so, it has been faling apart for 176 years, not that bad i thing.

PS: STOP MAKING HEINEKEN, its horrible!

:hippie:

[TWFanatic]

No, there wasnt. Recent archaeology has disproven most of the claims laid out in the Torah about the 'kingdoms' of David and Solomon. Jerusalem in the era was really only a backwater town with no real influence, while the Kingdom of Israel in the north was somewhat stronger, but still only a local power. In reality the Egyptians controlled most of that territory for centuries into the supposed time of the Israelite kings.
Interesting. Now I'm not doubting you, but could you provide any sources or links regarding these recent arechaeological discoveries? :egypt:

[Conradus]

Apperently Belgian Empire is referring to the time when we still had a colony: Congo, but if that's true, then every European nation should be on the list, and the USA. They al had colonies, even the US. Biased list, that's for sure.

And we're a long way from falling apart here in Belgium.

[bovi]

Why would you feel the need to take a crack at the US? Isn't there enough of that in the political mudpit on TWC? Go over there and do that stuff....let's leave the US bashing for another forum, yes?

BTW, have you ever been to America? I assume your from Norway. I do so love how people from Europe just think they know everything about us....I've heard so many stereotypes about the american people, it's getting really old.
Err... I think he was referring to me being Norwegian. Your remark, generalizing all of Europe, is not appreciated. Let's leave it at that.

[blitzkrieg80]

Arg!!

And here I was seriously challenging the definition of "empire" in people's minds based on language... And somehow people have to talk some nonsense, insulting Norway, not the US, and yes, let's get back to the point.

Armenia. A good point there... as someone else said, where's that on the list?... now if Armenia is to be defined an empire, what is the title it's leader took? Can something greater than king be found, because if not, it's not an empire. Empires involve sub-kings, but the definition of kings is vague so that sub-dukes are entirely possible too, but merely being King and successful and having different peoples is not enough. Now, I'm not saying the amazing effort of ancient Armenia was not enough, but somebody elucidate this.

PS- the kingdom(s) of the ancient Israeli were still interesting and worthy of mention... the point was that the exagerated propoganda isn't supported by evidence... I'm not talking about religion by the way, before any sensitive types explode

[Bootsiuv]

Err... I think he was referring to me being Norwegian. Your remark, generalizing all of Europe, is not appreciated. Let's leave it at that.

Well, his remark, generalizing all of America, was not appreciated. Let's leave it at that.

EDIT: BTW, I don't have anything against Europeans....look at the threads I've started and you'll see that I'm trying to increase community involvement. I just have something against the Europeans who think all americans are crack-smoking imperialists who drive SUVs and eat at McDonald's everyday.
EDIT2: After re-reading my post....I didn't even generalize all of Europe....I said people from Europe, which doesn't imply all people from europe....take a chill pill guy.

That dude just implied that every american is an imperialist. That's simply not the case. Allright I'm going back to being my usual nice self, and I hope we can just put this behind us.

No hard feelings, Bovi?

[Lysander13]

Well, his remark, generalizing all of America, was not appreciated. Let's leave it at that.

EDIT: BTW, I don't have anything against Europeans....look at the threads I've started and you'll see that I'm trying to increase community involvement. I just have something against the Europeans who think all americans are crack-smoking imperialists who drive SUVs and eat at McDonald's everyday.
EDIT2: After re-reading my post....I didn't even generalize all of Europe....I said people from Europe, which doesn't imply all people from europe....take a chill pill guy.

That dude just implied that every american is an imperialist. That's simply not the case. Allright I'm going back to being my usual nice self, and I hope we can just put this behind us.

No hard feelings, Bovi?

Easy friend...I think you've read this whole thing wrong. The "dude" who you said implied that every American is an imperialist......I suspect is umm...well....an American. So you see he wasn't taking a shot at the good 'ol USA. It seems it was more a bit of unfortunate chest thumping at someone else's expense...in this case Norway maybe, heh?

[Bootsiuv]

Well, whatever.

I don't like the image of americans as imperialists. Maybe Bush is, but I'm not, and I doubt any of my neighbors are either.

[Comemnus]

Not to re-ingnite an argument but the US is kind of being imperialish right now. Generally speaking the term empire just describes the most powerful country in existence, at any given time; which is why there is almost always an empire somewhere. The reason empire is considered a negative thing is because you usually have to be rather... violent... to get to the top of the pile.


just fyi
<---- American

[NeoSpartan]

Not to re-ingnite an argument but the US is kind of being imperialish right now. Generally speaking the term empire just describes the most powerful country in existence, at any given time; which is why there is almost always an empire somewhere. The reason empire is considered a negative thing is because you usually have to be rather... violent... to get to the top of the pile.


just fyi
<---- American

:thumbsdown:

not to re-ignite??? :laugh4: u guys are funny.

[blitzkrieg80]

imperialism has nothing to do with the "empire" state, despite word origin. In fact, all of the so-called "empires" we've discussed except maybe 2 are in reality imperialistic and not actual "empire." so, maybe the thread creator can enlighten us as to which they were referring to? I see no reason to continue discussion if we're just going to rehash the same overdone drama bs concering imperialism... its the most overdone topic, idea, theme, thing EVER... ever see Star Wars?

if you guys don't want to have an actual discussion we can consider this thread closed and a bad idea to begin with

nobody should be mentioning the US, if a real discussion is to take place... we're talking about ANCIENT empires.

[bovi]

I was hoping it would be left at that. Oh well.

[Conradus]

Come to think of it, where's the Holy Roman Empire? And that of Charlemagne?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
-Voltaire

[Bovarius]

Come to think of it, where's the Holy Roman Empire? And that of Charlemagne?

To have a empire, you need 3 things: one or more Laws, an Army and the possibility to raise Taxes, The Holy Roman Empire had non of those 3

[Bootsiuv]

imperialism has nothing to do with the "empire" state, despite word origin. In fact, all of the so-called "empires" we've discussed except maybe 2 are in reality imperialistic and not actual "empire." so, maybe the thread creator can enlighten us as to which they were referring to? I see no reason to continue discussion if we're just going to rehash the same overdone drama bs concering imperialism... its the most overdone topic, idea, theme, thing EVER... ever see Star Wars?

if you guys don't want to have an actual discussion we can consider this thread closed and a bad idea to begin with

nobody should be mentioning the US, if a real discussion is to take place... we're talking about ANCIENT empires.

Maybe I'm a little defensive (months in the political mudpit at TWC will do that to an American), and I do apologize to Bovi and other europeans who were offended by my post, although I really didn't mean ALL europeans.

I"m just sick of the stereotypes that I ALWAYS here. It seems the world has already judged me, and it doesn't even know me.:shame:

Please, don't let my minor quibble ruin your discussions.

I'll try to be less defensive in the future, and remember this isn't the political mudpit.

Sorry guys. :shame:

Well, on with the discussion....

[blitzkrieg80]

i think you guys are on to something... a tax system is a key difference between petty kingship and more advanced "empires"- for instance, i believe the satrapy system in Persia was specifically set up for administrative purposes which is most often just a way to get resources and wealth rather than any altruistic purpose for the people or even merely peace in the area.. i am not so well learned on satraps, does anyone want to add on that?

i disregard the "law" and "army" elements not because they are not good ideas (they are) but because it is widely accepted that ANY state needs those elements to exist, and kingships / despots certainly have them as well as tribal organizations, even if to a lesser degree. they are also both very vague terms- i consider Trial by Combat to be very just law and the non-dark Dark Ages is characterized in much of Europe by Germanic and Celtic tribal laws, which were respected by each tribe and considered legitimate

ps- good quote, Antonius- i love that one... right up there with Franklin's "death and taxes"

[Tiberius Nero]

Wow, pretty much everyone can make it into the empire club nowadays it seems.

[sgsandor]

As far as stereotypes go, I have this to say they are pretty funny when i hear them. Like that all Americans are fat, which is not true at all we do infact spend Alot of money on liposuction and stomach stapling. Lol jk
As an American some of my countrymen do upset me but I still love them. As a magyar my feeling is all glory is fleeting so have a drink and let them see if anyone else can do better

[Sarkiss]

Armenia. A good point there... as someone else said, where's that on the list?... now if Armenia is to be defined an empire, what is the title it's leader took? Can something greater than king be found, because if not, it's not an empire. Empires involve sub-kings, but the definition of kings is vague so that sub-dukes are entirely possible too, but merely being King and successful and having different peoples is not enough. Now, I'm not saying the amazing effort of ancient Armenia was not enough, but somebody elucidate this.

well, isnt "Empire" a latin word?
Tigran's title (and Artavazd's afterwards) was King of Kings. Parthians, whos King held the title before, recognized him as such after reduction of Ecbatana. Plutarch describes four lesser king as his servants and bodyguards. and his empire didnt not last long, it wasnt that short lived either, comparing to some on the list (Koreans?).
https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/937/20tigranes9566kl1.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[blitzkrieg80]

Sarkiss, that's awesome to hear, very interesting... thanks! so what language was the title and what title was it? was it the Persian "King of Kings"?

[Sarkiss]

Sarkiss, that's awesome to hear, very interesting... thanks! so what language was the title and what title was it? was it the Persian "King of Kings"?
in the East, there were no "Imperator"s or "Empire"s for that matter. the Assyrian and Urartian kings would call themselves Kings of Kings. though IIRC Egyptians, Sumerians before that were the first implementing the title. so if you trace the tradition back to its roots it goes well beyond the era of Achemenids and Medes.
this Eastern Imperial tradition is what Foot trying to represent with new Hayasdan's reforms. though he referred to recreating Achemenids order, which is more relevant to our time frame since Yervand's (Oronid) dynasty was related to the Achemenid dynasty and so could theoretically claim the Persian throne, restore the old order.

[Conradus]

I knew that quote too, didn't know who it was from though. But if the Israelite Empire is on that list, the Holy Roman should be, it had some political power in Europe, it's Emperor was called Emperor and under some emperors they were quite a player in Europe( Charles I, Barbarossa,...)

Regardless, Charlemagne should be on the list, his empire didn't endure, but it's comparable to the Armenian.

And Bovi, if we apply your definition of an empire, then Vatican City is one ;)

[bovi]

What, exactly, is my definition of empire? I've never said. My contribution to this discussion was to say that there's more to human history than empires. Or, to be precise, questioning the attitude of some here who seem to think so.

[Bootsiuv]

I don't think anyone ever said there wasn't more to human history than empires, unless I'm missing something.

[bovi]

I don't think anyone ever said there wasn't more to human history than empires, unless I'm missing something.

That's a long list of Empires! And it's mildly depressing that the majority of human history was just broken down into about 50 lines...
Okay, not exact. He said majority, not all. There's the attitude though. Fallen thinks so certainly, from his *cough* friendly response. Although that was prompted by my post.

I'll exit this thread now, so I don't derail it once more. See you in another discussion.

[Bootsiuv]

Oh....I see now. You are quite right. :)

[Gazius]

I've been musing around the idea of something like a realistic 'civ' and having played both Civilization: BTS, and waaay too many Paradox games, I was heading at this question from what one might consider a great achievement in history; the creation of the state. Empire in many forms, monarchy in others, democracies and republics, the projection of power far beyond what a single man can do.

However this is the wrong approach. Or at least I can't think of any plausible way to do. Once must approach it EB style: By realizing that at the head of it all, it's a bunch of guys convincing others to follow their pied pipers of byzantic traits through history. Of course, in say the late republic/early Roman Empire, the state still mattered to some marginal degree, but really, it was the delightful Augustus and Nero who defined the times. Model any empirical game after the oligarchy. If you have a senate, fine, give those senators lives. Let their interests conflict. If you have a monarchy, let the madman run naked down the street with the constitution in hand. Anything beyond the traits of a person is just tech research and your laze/labour ratio.

[Watchman]

"Empire" is pretty much a relationship anyway - one of power, to be more specific. The word only really has real meaning in the context of multiple actors; the ones with sufficient clout, influence, standing etc. are "empires". You could say that whoever is regarded as a big shot and someone to pay close attention to by a sufficient (rather arbitrary) portion of the communities and other political actors of its relevant time and place qualifies. Eg. the Genoan and Venetian mercantile empires (which actually kinda remind you of Carthage at its heyday), Sweden in its Great Power period (which incidentally ended at Poltava in 1712)... move to a point of time when they're not that powerful and influential, and they're just another bunch of tossers. Kinda like how Rome only starts counting as an empire when it first becomes a major player in its reference area, or Byzantium was an Empire in name only (literally enough) in the period just before the Ottomans mopped up the last vestiges.

This isn't the same thing as the existence of a civilization, community etc. as a distinct entity, except of course it's sort of hard to be an empire if you don't exist anymore - but per definition any such actor that disappears in such a fashion has to have lost the imperial status at somepoint beforehand, anyway. Unsurprisingly most such entities were in existence far longer than they could be counted as empires; eg. Babylon was an empire on at least two occasions, but the city itself existed for a far longer period without being powerful and influential enough to make the cut.

And of course calling yourself an Empire in some permutation doesn't make you an empire, anymore than calling your state People's Democratic Republic makes it a democracy. The HRE is a sort of good case in point. The Hansa merchant cities and the Teutonic Order's Ordensstaat were most of the time by far closer to that status (albeit only in the Baltic, obviously) than that nigh-unmanageable mess.

[Cyclops]

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."
-Voltaire


To have a empire, you need 3 things: one or more Laws, an Army and the possibility to raise Taxes, The Holy Roman Empire had non of those 3

Voltaire was reffering to the entity as it existed in the 18th century. Under Otto the Great, or Charlemagne, the organisation had a different character. Quite imperial you might say.


What, exactly, is my definition of empire? I've never said. My contribution to this discussion was to say that there's more to human history than empires. Or, to be precise, questioning the attitude of some here who seem to think so.

You're onto something. Self described empires look for images of themselves in the past, as nobles look for their ancestors (real or imagined), nationalists loom for their volk and democrats look for "freedom".


"Empire" is pretty much a relationship anyway - one of power, to be more specific...

Kudos.

Empire is related to the latin term Imperator, one who conquers. I'd say an Empire is that which is conquered, as opposed to that which is truly equal or otherwise associated.

I'd guess Empires share a set of traits from this pool: a ruling class or sept (eg Roman Senators, or an Imperial family, or a defined group like Athenian citizens), a metropolis or priveliged homeland and provinces who answered and sent tribute to the metropolis.

My guess is the Assyrians represent perhaps the first geniune empire in that they had a ruling class of Assyrian nobles with a monarch from a designated lineage who imposed rule on tributary regions in a very fierce and direct way. I believe they redefined international relations in Mesopotamia and beyond and opened the flloodgates on Empire building with tactics like massive population relocation and economic integration focussed ont the centre.

Perhaps Egypt was formed as an Empire from 2 kingdoms, but became an integrated state with a discrete homogenous territory. Their power relationships to their neighbours feel more like "sphere of influence" than "metroplolis-province" to the small extent of my knowledge.

By this definition Rome (and the USA) are Empire-states in transition, as conquered territorys become provionces but eventually participate in the metrolpolitan privileges (citizenship, sending representatives to the centre).

The USA acquired many states by conquest, but made them into states fairly quickly or shed them (aside from Puerto Rico...any others?).

The EU by definition is an anti-empire as it is neither formed nor held together by war, but rather the fear of war. The Athenian Empire began as a federation but was conquered from within by Athens.

China turned a Han Empire into a Han dominated state, but treated neighbours as provinces even when they were independent. Oh well, the walked like an Empire, and talked like an Empire...

[blitzkrieg80]

Wow. You guys are deep. Imperator comes from General? How insightful... I guess that's why Augustus was called General citizen and provinces are called Empiralities... oh wait, no they aren't. seems you guys should study language a little closer. The relationship between powerful and influencial states and smaller states is pathetically simple and hardly related to the overgeneralization involved on this thread... Why not ask ourselves, "which empire would you be"? :applause: Let's mention volk while we're at it and act high and mighty because we know the most reoccuring frame in all history, which is quite unrelated. :shifty:

Know what's funny to me? You guys have NO IDEA about the difference between Regules and Rex, otherwise you wouldn't call every single kingdom that's ever existed an "empire" - Mesopotamian empire, my bullock.

[Cyclops]

Wow. You guys are deep. Imperator comes from General? How insightful... I guess that's why Augustus was called General citizen and provinces are called Empiralities... oh wait, no they aren't. seems you guys should study language a little closer. The relationship between powerful and influencial states and smaller states is pathetically simple and hardly related to the overgeneralization involved on this thread... Why not ask ourselves, "which empire would you be"? :applause: Let's mention volk while we're at it and act high and mighty because we know the most reoccuring frame in all history, which is quite unrelated. :shifty:

Know what's funny to me? You guys have NO IDEA about the difference between Regules and Rex, otherwise you wouldn't call every single kingdom that's ever existed an "empire" - Mesopotamian empire, my bullock.

Chill pill dude. I find your tenuous grasp of English funny, if we're getting down to brass tacks, but thats OT.

I thnk its fair to muddle on about he meaning of the word, as most of the entities on the Wiki list did not use the word of themselves. Historians in the future will call the USA an empire if they want to, whether it has a President, High Priest or a Wanax in charge.

I note from an earlier post you feel the Shah-in-Shah might be the first Emperor. Fair call, but I see the Assyrians as blazing a significant bit of a trail that the Medians and Persians followed. The Persians certainly seemed to settle in groups in their conquered realms (eg Pontus), maybe that finds an echo in the Roman colonies. I have a feeling the Assyrians did the same, planting their guys everywhere while dragging subject folks from pillar to post to keep them in line. I'd say colonialisn is a big part of imperialism.

My country, Australia had a crack at colonialism in the 20th century. We pinched part of the island of New Guinea from the Germans after WW1. We sent an administrative elite, an exploitative crowd of merchants and plantation owners, some missionaries and some guys with guns to back it all up.

We acquired the territory through fighting and treated it like a province rather than a component of our Commonwealth so in a small ridiculous way (according to my vague suggest definition) we had an Australian Empire, even though we were explicitly a fragment of the (nominal) British Empire.

Not glorious, and we bugged out in 1975. They haven't had a civil war yet, so we didn't rip the place apart, but the power relationship we built was unbearabble to the Metropolis so it had to change.

[Conradus]

What, exactly, is my definition of empire? I've never said. My contribution to this discussion was to say that there's more to human history than empires. Or, to be precise, questioning the attitude of some here who seem to think so.

My apologies, I was referring to Bovarius and mixed your names :sorry:

[Tiberius Nero]

Empire is related to the latin term Imperator, one who conquers. I'd say an Empire is that which is conquered, as opposed to that which is truly equal or otherwise associated.


Just to nitpick here, Imperator is "one who commands" and is a honorary title for a general awarded almost spontaneously by his troops after a victory on the battlefield. It doesn't even mean "emperor" as we use the word today. The Roman emperor's official title was "president of the senate" (princeps senatus), which was a honorary rank already existent in the Republic.

Linguistics won't get you anywhere on this, nor will anything else because the term "empire" is ill defined; at best it describes a relation of power as Watchman said, but that leads to "empire" meaning nothing in absolute terms, it could just as well be called "hegemony" or anything. Putting the "Athenian Empire" next to the "Roman Empire" on the list, for example, shows that when one speaks of empire it doesn't describe a power in absolute terms (the disparity is obvious). In that way you can find an "empire" under any rock you lift, so I don't know what use the term is. Perhaps it is my Greek linguistic background, but when in Greek we refer to a state entity as "autokratoria (=empire)" we generally mean it's humongous (British empire, Roman empire, Ottoman empire e.g.) in terms of military power, expanse of land and multitude of nations it rules over; nobody would call in Greek the Athenian hegemony an "autokratoria" for example, and the modern cavalier use of "empire" in English leaves me somewhat perplexed.

[Zaknafien]

As a student of history and paticularly Roman history, I would agree the The United States is an impeiral entity. It has conquered vast swaths of land formerly held by native peoples, delegating them into subservient roles or exterminating them altogether in many instances. The Conquest of the Louisiana territory and further west across the Mississippi is one of the great conquests of land in all history, and the contienental US Empire one of the largest in history that was won largely by military conquest and a slash and burn campaign.

The overseas campaigns of this empire are just as impressive, with numerous overseas interventions and aggressive wars of conquest in its short history, encountering dozens of national powers and overthrowing them to conquer its land, Hawaii, Spain, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines, etc, etc to name a few.

Today, the United States dominates imperially across the globe via its culture and its military, with hundreds of occupational military bases in countries around the world, and the ability to bring military conquest to any country in the world in a very short amount of time. The number of puppet states that support the US policies and goals amount to an Empire like Rome's. It is interesting that most countries today could be considered one of these puppet states.

[Cyclops]

Just to nitpick here, Imperator is "one who commands" and is a honorary title for a general awarded almost spontaneously by his troops after a victory on the battlefield. It doesn't even mean "emperor" as we use the word today. The Roman emperor's official title was "president of the senate" (princeps senatus), which was a honorary rank already existent in the Republic.

Thank you for the correction.


Linguistics won't get you anywhere on this, nor will anything else because the term "empire" is ill defined; at best it describes a relation of power as Watchman said, but that leads to "empire" meaning nothing in absolute terms, it could just as well be called "hegemony" or anything. Putting the "Athenian Empire" next to the "Roman Empire" on the list, for example, shows that when one speaks of empire it doesn't describe a power in absolute terms (the disparity is obvious). In that way you can find an "empire" under any rock you lift, so I don't know what use the term is. Perhaps it is my Greek linguistic background, but when in Greek we refer to a state entity as "autokratoria (=empire)" we generally mean it's humongous (British empire, Roman empire, Ottoman empire e.g.) in terms of military power, expanse of land and multitude of nations it rules over; nobody would call in Greek the Athenian hegemony an "autokratoria" for example, and the modern cavalier use of "empire" in English leaves me somewhat perplexed.

Yep all good points.

If we agree the Roman city state built an Empire and try to define the sort of entity it was we can arrive at a meaningful definition of Empire.

I'd say the elements of a metropolis, colonies, provinces and military conquest are a fair start.

@Zaknafien, I'd say the USA is a federal entity which has behaved in an imperial manner but generally not had the heart (or neccesary cruelty or whatever) to be an Empire in the terms I suggest.

Like any huge powerful state it has crushed some people, but I think fundamentally it is ruled in the interests of its constituents, or at least as much as my country is.

They did conquer huge swathes of contiguous land from Native Americans and Mexicans, and had a crack at pinching islands like the Philipines and Hawaii. Most of those areas were colonized but they have not remained provinces, they have been integrated into the homeland and have more or less full rights, or they bugged out.

My guess is the vast majority in the USA don't want to be an Empire, and a few sneaky types wangle them into acting like one now and again. Happens to the best countries.

Anyway they're a long way from the Assyrians who I see as the first real cruel conquering Empire as asked in the OP.

[Zaknafien]

Fair enough, but still exceedingly similar to the Roman Empire around 250-ish BCE to 70-ish BCE.

[blitzkrieg80]

haha - wtf! if the USA is an empire, why are we paying for the oil we supposedly conquered? yea, really like Rome...

what is the point in defining Imperator- retarded civilizations later used the term for "Emperor", not Romans

[Watchman]

Uh - Rome paid itself sick for the Silk Road goods in the case you forgot... I understand they were somewhat worried about the way gold in particular was flowing the other way from their coffers.

And as to why the US pays for its oil, well, I suggest you look at Iraq. It really does work more smoothly if the natives are willing to part with the gunk...

[blitzkrieg80]

Watchman, are you saying Rome owned the Silk Trade route? Do you have any evidence of this, this is groundbreaking stuff!

[Zaknafien]

The US Empire works in much the same way the Roman Republic's Empire did-- military expansion or threat of intervention brings favorable circumstances for mercantile efforts and colonization. The US has hundreds of what amount to military colonies scattered across the globe, for instance.

[Cyclops]

Fair enough, but still exceedingly similar to the Roman Empire around 250-ish BCE to 70-ish BCE.

Both republics with a somewhat violent public life, but I think the differences are greater than the similarities.

I think Rome expanded aggressively and opportunistically during the late republic. The system they built to survive in the bloodpit of 4th cent BC Italy channelled the upper, middle and lower classes into a pragmatic unified goal where wealth status and plotical office were all integrated into military service.

Once Italy was in hand the system needed new conquests to keep the wheel turning. I don't buy all the Bellum Justum rubbish, Rome found enemies when they needed them, and chewed them to keep its triumph mill turning over.

In contrast the USA has a fairly decentralised system, and their military tradition is far from glorious or decisive in their political scene. Grant and Eisenhower were generals who took office but McArthur and McLellan failed: military glory did not automatically mean political success. I feel Kennedy proved the politicians call the shots, not the generals.

As for being expansionist, the USA pursued the Monroe doctrine for almost a century, a decidely limited horizon for expansion. The cynical episode of the Spanish war was a deviation: the US has bugged out of the Philipines and lost Cuba as a dependency.

At the decisive moment at Versaille, when Wilson stood astride the ruins of Europe and everyone "saw the Elephant" of US hegemony, Congress turned its back on the world. Only post WW2 has the USA come out swinging as an interventionist power. They don't have Romes record of success or the stomach for the slaughter required to be an Empire.

The three major actions of the US military since WW2 are Korea (messy draw), Vietnam (messy loss) and now Iraq (whatever you call that, its messy). None have been wholehearted or overly glorified, and have provoked strong negative reactions at home. All have been sold as "defensive wars" (which is Roman enough) but the first two at least were definitely "not for profit".

Also the Yanks would smash the Romans at baseball, proving their non Imperial status. Although I have a feeling the legionaries could have given them a tussle in the American football. "Triarii, hup hup!"

[Cyclops]

The US Empire works in much the same way the Roman Republic's Empire did-- military expansion or threat of intervention brings favorable circumstances for mercantile efforts and colonization. The US has hundreds of what amount to military colonies scattered across the globe, for instance.

Yes but those guys go home whereas I think colonae were the nails that held Roman rule in place. The USA is simply not interested in acquiring huge tracts of real estate the way the Romans did.

I don't think your analogy flies. Maybe Rome is more like Carthage? Incredibly rich metropolis, strong commercial ethic, wide spread network of outposts, strong brilliant navy, variable perfomance in land wars, and a senate willing to tolerate but suspicous of military adventurers. Hannibal Bushca?

[Watchman]

Watchman, are you saying Rome owned the Silk Trade route? Do you have any evidence of this, this is groundbreaking stuff!:inquisitive: ...what are you talking about ?

[Sarcasm]

Don't mind him. He's that old creepy uncle that smells like cabbage which people tolerate on account of old-age.

[Watchman]

Ah, that explains things.
The USA is simply not interested in acquiring huge tracts of real estate the way the Romans did.Which is to a large part because the Age of Empire style of colonies has been found to be a Bad Idea, in some cases through bitter lost wars. It's just not really possible to try to directly lord it over the natives from overseas in the era of national sentiment and cheap guns.

Which is why they cut deals with the local crooks in charge instead, and let the money-men in suits do the rest. Much more cost-effective, and doesn't lose you elections half as readily.

[Horst Nordfink]

I don't think that the US is an empire. At least not in the convential sense. Although, it does throw it's weight around in an imperialistic manner sometimes.

Although, rarely too succesfully, which I think is the main difference between Roma and the US.

[iwwtf_az]

The USA does not acquire land because that is completely unnecessary for todays world economy.

To control and make money off the Greek states, Rome had to take it over and keep it.

Nowadays, the USA only needs to leave a military base and spread "democracy" to make money. The corporate companies that move in for the score don't need the country to be American, only controlled by America.

[Zaknafien]

Exactly. Cyclops, in today's world empires do not need to gain huge tracts of land. Empires today are economic and influencial, not colors on a map. the US controls most of the world economically and poliitcally through either direct military or economic (loans) control, or implied threat of military intervention if said country doesnt do what its told. Luckily, some countries like China and Venezuela are starting to shirk the US' hegemony to prevent total domination, but for the past 50 years the situation has been pretty bleak.

[Watchman]

The USSR might of have had something to do with that, mind you. "Pick your poison."

Then again, it could be argued the running necessities of maintaining that global power - starting with the obscene running costs of the military alone - conversely haven't exactly been doing good things to the country either... one gets a bit of "imperial overreach" vibe every now and then.

Well, especially when one takes a look at how thoroughly the economy is dependent on someone else (mainly the Japanese, and nowadays China too) being willing to buy dollars out of it...

[Zaknafien]

Agreed; but its significant that the USA today is largely a militarized counry much as the Roman Republic was. While the ratio of manpower directly serving in the armed forces is not nearly as high, the number of people and dollars invested in the total military-industrial complex is staggering. One could almost say the US economy is dependant on the MIC, which is a self-perpetuating cycle of war and buildup for war, the permanent military footing that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address.

[geala]

The USA does not rule the world similar to Rome and it is dangerous to think that USA is "the" dominating economic power. It is one of the dominating economic powers and the one with the political will and ability to throw the power in to achieve certain goals. A dangerous way sometimes btw. There are other mayor powers and will-be powers in the world. Some, like the EU, are politically a bit like a laughing stock. At first glance at least. But beware. The hidden resistance to EU integration and the many efforts to settle the trade wars between USA and EU can tell you something. And China and India and Russia are there too.

The USA and Europe fortunately have in many aspects the same interests; it was not the fear of the mighty US army or economic pressure that forced many European states (except France, Germany and some others) to join the second Iraque war. The feeling that the attack at the World Trade Center was not an attack at the USA but the western culture and economic "empire" is widely spread in Europe and also right in my opinion. The answer to the threat was wrong in the mind of some states, although they see the threat. And the USA could not dare to be angry very long with the deniers, because the USA is not a Rome like empire. You know what Rome did to Rhodes because they missed some Rhodian eagerness in the help of the Romans against the Macedons.

Btw "empire": I think the origin of the word is yet important. The word comes from the Roman empire and many people have such a construction in mind, when they speak from empires. Empire stems not only from imperator, but from imperium which is the name for the power of a administrative official to rule in a certain area. Later it is the term for the Imperium Romanum. After the Roman empire many states tried to copy the great antetype. The Holy Roman Empire is a good example. In state theory the Roman empire never died but remained as a, no, as "the" form of power. Charlemagne had this idea and the Ottonic kings, later emperors in Germany had the same idea. So the German state was named "Imperium Romanum", although it has not much in common with the real Roman empire.

From that time the term empire was used for many different things, so a satisfying definition is no longer possible. It can mean everything and can be used for every time. The Persian Achaemenid state is better called an empire for example than the German empire after 1871, but you can use it now for both terms.

[iwwtf_az]

This is scary:
https://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/mulletman_bucket/usmilitarymap.jpg

even though the USA doesn't own the countries, they still make their intentions quite clear. International Military and Economic Dominance - much like Rome.

[Watchman]

Then again, the pale pink "with US troops" includes ones which makes me suspect they're little more than military attach&#233;s... I mean, there for sure ain't any US combat troops here in Finland for example. Ditto, no doubt, for the stubbornly neutral Sweden next door. And weren't many if not most of the European NATO-member bases scheduled for serious downgrading if not outright disbanding as unnecessary post Cold War ?

"Economic Dominance" also seems a bit questionable for me, given the parasitic tendencies of Das Kapital which notoriously knows no fatherland - only opportunities.

[Cyclops]

The USSR might of have had something to do with that, mind you. "Pick your poison."...

The USSR met most of my criterea for an empire: they had a favoured homeland (Great Russia), heaps of military conquests (eastern Europe) followed by an occasional aggressive adventure (Hungary, Prague Spring, Afghanistan). the conquests were given a subordinate status and paid heavy tribute (lopsided command economy), and there was plenty of horrific population relocations. I don't know abiout actual colonies per se. Did lots of Russians settle at Konigsburg? It seems to have become Russian politically.

The Soviet "Empire" contrasts with the US dominated zone in Western Europe. After WW2 the French turned their back on US alliance, and Germany promptly allied with France. The US definitely exerted a looser "dominion" over its "conquests". I think the term Empire is not the right one.

[Zaknafien]

Well by your own definition the US clearly qualifies.

Favored homeland (the eastern seaboard)

Military Conquest (The rest of the United States)

Aggressive Adventures (Too many to name here, but paticularly Invasions of Canada, Mexico, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, dozens of countries in South America, Grenada, Hawaii, etc, etc etc, etc).

Colonies (Hundreds of military bases and economic enclaves across the world).

[Horst Nordfink]

The USA does not rule the world similar to Rome and it is dangerous to think that USA is "the" dominating economic power. It is one of the dominating economic powers and the one with the political will and ability to throw the power in to achieve certain goals. A dangerous way sometimes btw. There are other mayor powers and will-be powers in the world. Some, like the EU, are politically a bit like a laughing stock. At first glance at least. But beware. The hidden resistance to EU integration and the many efforts to settle the trade wars between USA and EU can tell you something. And China and India and Russia are there too.

The USA and Europe fortunately have in many aspects the same interests; it was not the fear of the mighty US army or economic pressure that forced many European states (except France, Germany and some others) to join the second Iraque war. The feeling that the attack at the World Trade Center was not an attack at the USA but the western culture and economic "empire" is widely spread in Europe and also right in my opinion. The answer to the threat was wrong in the mind of some states, although they see the threat. And the USA could not dare to be angry very long with the deniers, because the USA is not a Rome like empire. You know what Rome did to Rhodes because they missed some Rhodian eagerness in the help of the Romans against the Macedons.

Btw "empire": I think the origin of the word is yet important. The word comes from the Roman empire and many people have such a construction in mind, when they speak from empires. Empire stems not only from imperator, but from imperium which is the name for the power of a administrative official to rule in a certain area. Later it is the term for the Imperium Romanum. After the Roman empire many states tried to copy the great antetype. The Holy Roman Empire is a good example. In state theory the Roman empire never died but remained as a, no, as "the" form of power. Charlemagne had this idea and the Ottonic kings, later emperors in Germany had the same idea. So the German state was named "Imperium Romanum", although it has not much in common with the real Roman empire.

From that time the term empire was used for many different things, so a satisfying definition is no longer possible. It can mean everything and can be used for every time. The Persian Achaemenid state is better called an empire for example than the German empire after 1871, but you can use it now for both terms.

The USA doesn not rule the world AT ALL!

[Watchman]

Doesn't mean it wouldn't like to, in some fashion at least.

[Horst Nordfink]

Agreed.

It annoys me that that is how some Americans see it though. What really infuriates me is when they call the President the "leader of the free world". It's just pretentious nonsense.

And don't get me started on the EU either!! The biggest mistake Britain ever made was to join that Franco-German mafia.

[Watchman]

I've found the common currency and easy border crossing quite convenient, myself. And anything that helps get rid of the lingering 1800s jingoism and longstanding European tendency to go beat up your neighbour for fun and profit is a plus in my books.

[Horst Nordfink]

Seen as I live on an island off Europe who hasn't subscribed to this white elephant currency, I don't get those benefits.

You are correct about the binding countries together though. I just hope it doesn't go too far.

[Cyclops]

Well by your own definition the US clearly qualifies.

Favored homeland (the eastern seaboard)

Military Conquest (The rest of the United States)

Aggressive Adventures (Too many to name here, but paticularly Invasions of Canada, Mexico, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, dozens of countries in South America, Grenada, Hawaii, etc, etc etc, etc).

Colonies (Hundreds of military bases and economic enclaves across the world).

Yes but the USA usually gives nominal independence to its client states: Rome did that too, but usually appoointed direct rulers and heavy taxation.

Rome gradually extended citizenship to virtually all its subjects, but late in the day and I think its was a failed experiment. The USA generally extends citizenship to its subjects ASAP.

Romes conquests were generally celebrated triumphs, which kept the fame mill turining over. US adventures are sideshows and often fought for foggy ideological resons (those semi-feudal peasants must be commies!) or domestic consumption rather than to garner fame and wealth for the next generation of rulers.

The colonies were permanent settlements, not bases (Rome had both, US only bases).

I still think Carthage is a better (but far from perfect) analogy. There is a long established position, often in the ascendant, that has a deep distrust of foreign engagement, and would happily return to a less extended posture if they safely could.

[Watchman]

I'm pretty sure it's regarded as a bad form to make direct comparisions like that without accounting for the vast differences in communications, economy and pretty much everything else you know...

[geala]

@ Watchman: I concur.

@ horst nordfink: I don't like the centralistic and only partly democratic attitudes of the EU central administration that much, too. Esp. if you have also to deal with EU law (as I have to do) sometimes you feel the pressure to say words which polite people should not use. And the difference between the states is a problem, the UK is for example a big hindrance to get social standards for a worthy labour for everybody, not only the upper two-thirds. The EU has merits however, it is also a mighty economy. But if the EU only were a method to stop European wars (and it is) I would rather suffer a lot from its existence instead of having back "the good old time".

[Philip of Massalia]

Agreed.

It annoys me that that is how some Americans see it though. What really infuriates me is when they call the President the "leader of the free world". It's just pretentious nonsense..

Agreed !


And don't get me started on the EU either!! The biggest mistake Britain ever made was to join that Franco-German mafia.

And the biggest mistake France and Germany ever did was to accept Mr Heath appliance back in 1972. Without the UK, Europe would be federal now. And a big power indeed.

:beam:

[Horst Nordfink]

@ Philip of Massalia : You say that like being a federal European state is a good thing! You would lose many freedoms to govern yourselves, and be rules by Belgian beaurocrats. Also, as far as I'm aware, it was the Dutch and French who blew that the EU Contstitution out of the water before we got the chance to kill it.

@ geala : I don't understand what you mean when you say that the UK is a hindrance to get social standards? Could you please explain further?

[Watchman]

The last I checked EU members were quite autonomous enough. Too autonomous in some cases, given France's deep-seated habit of going its own way irrespective of earlier agreements...

[Horst Nordfink]

Yes, they're autonomous enough at the minute, but if it became a federal state, then they would lose that.

Because of EU regulations, you can be arrested and given a criminal record for selling vegetables/meat/fish in imperial measurements, which people in Britain know, rather than in metric, which is alien to some. This is the kind of pointlessness of the EU that irks people.

[Watchman]

That sounds like total BS, you know.

...incidentally, is it just me or would this perhaps not be the best place to discuss this...? :sweatdrop:

[Horst Nordfink]

Honestly, it really isn't BS! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2129528.stm

You're right though, it isn't really the best place. I didn't really plan to talk about it, it just happened.

[Cyclops]

Yes, they're autonomous enough at the minute, but if it became a federal state, then they would lose that.

Because of EU regulations, you can be arrested and given a criminal record for selling vegetables/meat/fish in imperial measurements, which people in Britain know, rather than in metric, which is alien to some. This is the kind of pointlessness of the EU that irks people.

See, I told you the EU was an anti-Empire!

Although standardization of weights and measures is normal imperial behaviour...:dizzy2:

Really whats the fuss? Imperial is a ludicrous system, metric is so simple even an Australian can learn it! Took us less than a decade to forget the Imperial altogether. People use terms like "yard" and "six footer" in a vague literary way. You can still get pints (if you like holding onto you beer long enough for it to get warm that is).

I think a common system of weights and measures is a simple step toward shared values in other areas. Its a gross oversimplification, but the basic premise of the EU (make red tape, not war) is a thrilling, bold, wonderful change from the previous motto of Europe/christendom/the West (lets disembowel each other at least twice a century for something serious like who has the best invisible friend, a dead ArchDuke or Jenkins ear).

People point out the similarities between the EU and the Prussian Zollverein, perhaps it is merely a precursor to empire? Is there an Irish Bismarck waiting in the wings?

[Gazius]

the EU (make red tape, not war) is a thrilling, bold, wonderful change from the previous motto of Europe/christendom/the West (lets disembowel each other at least twice a century for something serious like who has the best invisible friend, a dead ArchDuke or Jenkins ear).

Thanks to you people, whenever America wants to go on an adventure now, instead of visiting the nice European continent, we gotta go fight in shit holes like Vietnam and Iraq. The EU is the biggest threat to American fun, evar. Worse than the entire communist bloc. I mean, you could still self-destruct, I send my second paycheck to Scotty Adolf McBismark every month, but he just seems to sit around the pubs drunk all day. He did however finally buy a copy of Mein Kampf. Or maybe he just said Mein Kampfy chair. He gets this bizarre german accent half way into his third pint. :clown:

[Watchman]

Yeah, we're bad like that. :smoking: Gotta problem with it ?

[Bootsiuv]

Thanks to you people, whenever America wants to go on an adventure now, instead of visiting the nice European continent, we gotta go fight in shit holes like Vietnam and Iraq. The EU is the biggest threat to American fun, evar. Worse than the entire communist bloc. I mean, you could still self-destruct, I send my second paycheck to Scotty Adolf McBismark every month, but he just seems to sit around the pubs drunk all day. He did however finally buy a copy of Mein Kampf. Or maybe he just said Mein Kampfy chair. He gets this bizarre german accent half way into his third pint. :clown:


I don't think people from Vietnam or Iraq would appreciate your comments. I understand what you're saying, but they aren't shit holes. We're just stupid enough (americans I mean) to stick our nose in everyone's business and get involved in other peoples wars.

For some bizarre and completely stupid reason, we've decided to become the unofficial "police" of the world, and it's a waste of american time and resources.

Now, I'm all for helping starving people out with food and stuff like that, but that's a job for the UN.

As for Iraq we should have let it lie.

Getting rid of Saddam left a power vacuum that we're struggling to fill. We should have just let things be. At least it was more stable in that region.

Bush may very well have indirectly caused the end of america as we know it. Whether that decline in power takes a few centuries, I don't know, but I think america's "golden age" has passed.

Sorry for rambling, but you spoke of Vietnam and Iraq, and it reminded me how I just don't understand why americans feel the need to make everyone else's problems there own.

[Horst Nordfink]

Now, if there's one thing I hate more than European interference; it's American interference!!

I will stick with my European brothers!!

[Bootsiuv]

One last thing....in Bush's defense (which is crazy, because I can't stand looking at the dude)...

It takes a VERY good person to have access to the kind of power the american president has and not feel puffy in the chest...

Having thousands of nukes and one of the largest militaries in the world would probably make most people power drunk....

That's why we need to be more careful in choosing our commander-in-chief...ok I'm done speaking about this crap.

Back to the simple joys of eb....

[Zaknafien]

Ive been thinking more and more of the parallels one can draw between the Roman and American republics; the nature of the grueling insurgency war in Spain for the Romans which lasted the better part of a century can be compared to Vietnam or Iraq for the Americans; both changed/are changing the nature of the military complex, leading form the citizen-militia army to professional, mercenary forces motivated by profit. It bodes ill for the American forces, as we saw with the Romans, for once the army becomes a privatized group of financially-motiviated volunteers, it tends to follow the money-- whomever is paying it out in the largest amounts. Which for the Romans was Sulla et all who followed him, and for the Americans, only time will tell.

[Bellum]

No single person, or even a corporation, can match the funding power of the US government.

There are other considerations, such is how modern militaries are led by bureaucracy, not a single general. There are only a limited number of examples to choose from, and many of the variables have changed since then.



Really whats the fuss? Imperial is a ludicrous system, metric is so simple even an Australian can learn it! Took us less than a decade to forget the Imperial altogether. People use terms like "yard" and "six footer" in a vague literary way. You can still get pints (if you like holding onto you beer long enough for it to get warm that is).

Making using certain measurements illegal is ludicrous.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

@ Philip of Massalia : You say that like being a federal European state is a good thing! You would lose many freedoms to govern yourselves, and be rules by Belgian beaurocrats. Also, as far as I'm aware, it was the Dutch and French who blew that the EU Contstitution out of the water before we got the chance to kill it.

Ahh, it still makes me proud to hear we blew up the blueprint for the EU super state. ;)

I can also understand why people don't get it, because the Netherlands practically started this whole EU thing with the Benelux. One of the main reasons so many people voted 'no', is because we got the Euro stuffed down our throat by the government. Prices literally doubled when that happened. A Guilder was less than half a Euro and not long after the switch many things that were 1 Guilder suddenly cost 1 Euro. And the paychecks did NOT increase, mind you. Only now are we slowly returning to the level we were before 2002.

At least Denmark got a chance to say yes or no. So we rebelled at the first possible opportunity. I'm not a fan of the EU state anyway, but I can see some of its benefits.

[Gazius]

stuff

I was hoping :clown: would convey that it's a joke. Or the very nature of my post would.

Anyways, back to watching this spiral completely from my original goal. This has turned from a hypothetical question on how to give representation the many choices presented to us in history and how those choices would have in turn affected history. What if hannibal had died? What if Germany had won Stalingrad? Giving alternatives to this, and allowing it to develop in a realistic manner was what I was trying to find. How do you accurately represent it, without the player making 'the best' decisions. Life certainly has none, and, unless it's a dictatorship, and even then, a single indivudual can't guide it in any historical matter unless it's scripted.

[Cyclops]

I was hoping :clown: would convey that it's a joke. Or the very nature of my post would.

I got it.


Anyways, back to watching this spiral completely from my original goal. This has turned from a hypothetical question on how to give representation the many choices presented to us in history and how those choices would have in turn affected history.

I think the leap from Roman Republic to the United states is a common one at the moment. The USA was founded self conciously on the model of Rome, with an oligarchy, a senate and a strong dislike of monarchy. I think the differences are greater than the similarities: Romes federation was much tighter, and far more militaristic.


What if hannibal had died?

Before the second Punic war? Rome would still have picked a fight with Carthage, and stolen the rest of their empire. It might have happened a bit quicker, but who knows? Maybe Hannibal spurred the Roman's aggression.


What if Germany had won Stalingrad?

Oooh I know this one: nuclear winter in Berlin. Civil war in Russia leading to a corrupt dictatorship...plus ca change...


Giving alternatives to this, and allowing it to develop in a realistic manner was what I was trying to find. How do you accurately represent it, without the player making 'the best' decisions. Life certainly has none, and, unless it's a dictatorship, and even then, a single individual can't guide it in any historical matter unless it's scripted.

Yes the game engine has to tell the story in a believable way. I guess the increasing complexity of the engine means its harder to channel the course of events into historical pathways. EB certainly makes a huge step in that direction. I like the fact I can make Athens a world power again, and the engine limitations make me concious how unlikely that would be.

The RTW engine suits a multi-faction struggle over an extended timeframe with multiple smale to large scale wars. Clash or Civilisation epochs are quite suitable: crusades, rise of Rome, and now they're doing 18th century.

I like the look of the "Rise of Persia" mod. A bit earlier there's a massive period of imperial expansion/clash of civilisation with all the colour and variety this system carries so well: the rise of Assyria. You'd have your fading Hittites, your depleted Egyptians, your Babylonians, your Iranian tribes (Medes for sure, maybe emergent Persians) and maybe even Cimmerians.

Maybe the "Warring states" period in China is another pallette offering less variety but still a fascinating line up of Han factions, some horse barbies, lots of province mopping and a final battle for Middle Kingdom domination. You have evoving tactics and technology (bow vs crossbow, chariot vs cavalry, levies & nobles vs proffesionals, spear vs sword vs pike, Legalism vs Confucianism vs Taoism etc. Ancillaries like Lao Tze, Sun Wu (Sun Tzu), Kung Fu Tze (Confucius) gee it practically writes itself.:dizzy2:

Massive binary clashes with 2 main factions are less suitable.

The boys at FATW are making a fine fist of Tolkiens world but the engine just couldn't make the War of the Ring fly: wrong timescale, and the thought of the AI making Gondor invade Rohan is distasteful. I feel Napoleonic era may not fit the RTW engine that well either. Likewise WW2.

I've always liked the Europa Universalis system for its scripting possibilities: you can go for dense detailed event descriptions with earth-shaking consequences or build in subtle long term trends. It also has an interesting approach to diplomacy/province control and CB markers.

Now if I win Mega Lotto, CA and Paradox may get a call about a joint project...

[Gazius]

I got it.

...

Now if I win Mega Lotto, CA and Paradox may get a call about a joint project...

Er. Actually, while you may get the joke, I think my question and answer has still gone missed. I've been speculating on your very last line myself, without the involvement of any existing company. My main question right now is the balance between player in a individual system and state, and where the player fits in that model. Perhaps I'll put up a website on the matter. I need to practice HTML anyways.

[Cyclops]

Er. Actually, while you may get the joke, I think my question and answer has still gone missed. I've been speculating on your very last line myself, without the involvement of any existing company. My main question right now is the balance between player in a individual system and state, and where the player fits in that model. Perhaps I'll put up a website on the matter. I need to practice HTML anyways.

There's a great little discursus on the "position" of the player in a game in the rulebook of a Totaler Krieg. TK was/is a magnificent WW2 Europe corps level epic board game (with hex map, counters, dice and cards). In the notes one of the designers (I forget which, they were two quite bright fellas who fell out in the end) ponders "who is the player playing? Is he Hitler? is he the Chief of staff? or the corps level commanders? The answer is all of them, at different times.

Its the same in RTW. I see the player as a sort of immortal vampire/prime minister/power behind the throne with ESP. Sometimes you're the faction leader, except when he dies in battle, then you're his 2IC. Sometimes you're the merchant class, making economic choices. Sometimes you're the priesthood, deciding matters of faith. Its all good for gameplay, if highly unrealistic. Who wants to play a merchant, when your decision making is limited to "Pay War Tax (yes/no)?"

Of course a game where you're a Macedonian (or even a Norman) warrior king battling your own nobles and suspecting your own family could be fun. RTS, with messengers sent from you current location with suggestions or commands for your AI-controlled allies and lackeys. Each spring a pile of wheat lands in your granary and you dole it out to your hangers-on. A reliable gold mine would be, well, a gold mine!

I like the idea you could grant some noble a tract of land, and hope that he comes to your summons in time of war, instead of click-building a fuedal knight in your MIC and paying his upkeep like he's a salaryman.

[Gazius]

I like the idea you could grant some noble a tract of land, and hope that he comes to your summons in time of war, instead of click-building a fuedal knight in your MIC and paying his upkeep like he's a salaryman.

Which is why my proposal is to base the entire project on simulating PEOPLE; War, peace, diplomacy, trade, it's all based on the actions of people. Give the people life, and they will choose their war, their peace, their trade, their lot in lives. If you've got a unbalanced person who hates you, of course your going to get diplomacy like you do between two large empires sharing borders in RTW. If your traits have turned you into another Ghandi, are you suddenly going to coup the state and lead it to war? No.



Sim: Total Government