When in history...

[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"? 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.

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"? 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.

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.

[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...

[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!"