posted
I was thinking about the term "Emperor" and began to wonder how many different "Empire's" there have been.
The US has been called one, though we don't have an Emporer.
England Rome Holy Roman? Spain France under the Louis? China (Several dynasties, one Empire) Japan under the Shoganate? Persian Mede? Incan Mayan Aztec Mongol? Egyptian (1 or 2?) Alexanders?
Please, no fictional ones allowed. And no, niether Microsoft nor Wal-Mart count. Governments only please.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Egypt I don't know about. Their territory never really spread much further south than Khartoum, or west of Egypt proper, or the Sinai to the east. Territorially they were small, and really never spread their power very far. They got rocked fairly often though by invaders from the outside.
If you want to go back to the start, I'd count Sumer as an Empire. The Indus Valley (modern day India) had a good sized empire before Alexander whooped it.
Japan wasn't an empire until WWII. I don't count controlling just Honshu as an empire, if that's the case, Cypress and Crete are empires, so I'd say Japan under Hideki Tojo and/or Hirohito.
Holy Roman I'd count, Spain I'd count, but you might want to toss Portugal on there too, and Holland, though those were really more Economic empires (well, not Portugal, that was as much an empire as the others for a time).
France had several instances of Empire, though I'd say militarily their best was under Napoleon and the Grande Armee rather than ANY of the Louis'.
You might want to consider a Catholic Empire as having existed around the Crusades. No other force at the time could have forced the nation states (in what form they existed in then) to put aside their quarrels and marshal the power of Europe to fight a war in the Levant.
And don't forget the Ottoman Turks.
Alexander was short lived, but it counts well enough. I'd say it's fair to count Athens and Sparta as well, Syracuse...is iffy, but Athens and Sparta for sure. Both of them wielded vast power in the Med, and held the allegience of dozens of other powerful city states.
You may or may not want to count all the little empires that were created when Alexander's collapsed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Medes and the Persians joined together to form what historians refer to as the "Medo-Persian Empire." Alexander's empire was the Grecian Empire. And Saddam Hussein would be very upset with you for forgetting the Babylonian Empire (ancient Babylon was in Iraq). There were empires in Africa, too (Zulu, etc.). Going back even further into the past, there was the Sumerian civilization, that I think was described as an empire. Virtually all the nations of antiquity were formed by wars of conquest. Oh yes, returning to more modern times, don't forget the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In South America you forgot the Toltec Empire. I think they were the ones who started domesticating maize (corn) through selective breeding.
You know, in the prophecy of Daniel chapter seven, the nations that take turns at dominion are symbolized by wild beasts, like leopards, bears, etc. This seems to be God's subtly sarcastic way of implying that nations that engage in wars of conquest are behaving like wild animals.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Holy Roman I'd count, Spain I'd count, but you might want to toss Portugal on there too, and Holland, though those were really more Economic empires (well, not Portugal, that was as much an empire as the others for a time).
France had several instances of Empire, though I'd say militarily their best was under Napoleon and the Grande Armee rather than ANY of the Louis'.
Quoting this, because Lyr has a point -- nations that were not necessarily territorial/military empires might be economic or cultural empires, though I would assume it's rare to find any one of those in a nation without at least one of the others.
posted
Thankfully, wikipedia has already given this a try, though I'm sure they're missing a few as well.
Most major European nations (for example we're missing Germany under the kaisers, Italy etc.) had empires at the dawn of the 20th century.
And as much as I dislike it when people call the US an empire, it does technically conform to the definition. But so does Australia, since we have territories overseas who's inhabitants are ethnically and culturally distinct from the people of the mainland. Christmas Island, for example, has a very large population of red crabs.
Also, this country belonged to the Aborigines before the British set foot on it. Is a country still an empire if the subjugated peoples are displaced or assimilated? If so then I'm guessing that the majority of countries have been empires at some point or another.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Japan wasn't an empire until WWII. I don't count controlling just Honshu as an empire, if that's the case, Cypress and Crete are empires, so I'd say Japan under Hideki Tojo and/or Hirohito.
Japan was an empire long before WWII. Consider for example the capture of Port Arthur in 1905, or the Sino Japanese war. Also, for Asians, WWII can be said to have started in 1931, when Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria, rather than in 1939.
And if you want to count Athens and Sparta (I think that's fair - hegemony seems to fall under the modern definition of empire), there are many other Greek city states which had empires of their own. Argos, Corinth, Thebes, etc. And a lot of them sent colonists out into the Mediterranean, too.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Far too many to count as usualy defined. The term is however fairly meaningless.
The challenge is to find a country which has never been part of any empire. Maybe some islands and a few in Central America, but that may be it.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were a number of empires post Muhammad - Umayyad, Abassid, Seljuk, Mumlak, Mongol. Also the Byzantines.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were a number of empires post Muhammad - Umayyad, Abassid, Seljuk, Mumlak, Mongol. Also the Byzantines.
The Byzantines were not post-Muhammad. They were way older. What we modern folk mistakenly call the Byzantine Empire was in fact the Eastern Roman Empire. They called themselves Romans and everyone around them called them Romans too. In fact there is a last peice of Europe that still calls itself that... Romania - "Land of the Romans". Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Japan never tried to occupy Korea in the sense of annexing it (Until the 1930's), or even subjugating it as that would have brought down the wrath of the Chinese. Japan technically was a tributary to China almost until the 1900's. However Japan several times invaded Korea and stayed long enough to chop down alot of their trees and ship them to Japan so as to preserve Japanese forests.
I don't think Japan was truly an empire until the 1930's when it started invading east Asia.
Does Biblical Israel count as an empire? Under David and Solomon they were quite a force to be reckoned with and their holdings were quite extensive.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: Oh, the Holy Roman Empire. It was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor truly an Empire.
This is what my world history teacher ALWAYS said, I found it very funny.
You should add France to the list, especially Napoleonic France, but also France of the later 1800s and early 20th century.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Japan never tried to occupy Korea in the sense of annexing it (Until the 1930's), or even subjugating it as that would have brought down the wrath of the Chinese. Japan technically was a tributary to China almost until the 1900's. However Japan several times invaded Korea and stayed long enough to chop down alot of their trees and ship them to Japan so as to preserve Japanese forests.
I don't think Japan was truly an empire until the 1930's when it started invading east Asia.
Japan did try to hold Korea, and Hideyoshi would have conquered China too, if he was able to. Japan simply failed in its imperial ambitions at the time.
What do you mean by tributary? China exercised significant influence (especially cultural) over Japan, but the country was essentially autonomous.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Shouldn't we DEFINE empire before we declare who was and wasn't one?
I'll propose a working definition, which is basically the same and wikipedia's; An empire is a state which holds dominion over regions whose inhabitants are ethnically and culturally distinct from those who chiefly hold power in that state.
For the purposes of this list, let's limit 'dominion' to direct political, military or economic control over a people's internal affairs or foreign policy.
posted
Well in that case, what was modern Iraq until a couple years ago was an Empire, as is current Iran and Turkey, as they all hold Kurds there against their will. America is an Empire because of their conquest of the American Indians...
Pretty much every nation has been an Empire. Every kingdom, every territory. Prior to the the 1700's or so, the entire planet was at war with each other usually. After that, people still did it, just with less success (ish). And it's still going on today. The list is too long to be worthwhile.
Better list, who WASN'T an empire?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When America became a country, the Amerindians were not a nation. Some tribes were in the process of forming what might have become a real nation, but the Amerindians were very libertarian, very individualistic. Most Americans thought of the Indian wars as merely part of pacifying the wilderness. But it is an interesting idea, to consider that even so, conquest of the Amerindians might have constituted American empire-building. We also had to fight Mexico over Texas, and Spain over Cuba.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at the definition being used. It doesn't demand that the place being invaded be a NATION, it couldn't or else everything invaded before the 1500's wouldn't count.
It merely has to be a region held against their will be people ethnically and culturally different. (I think there's more to that definition than that, but suffices for now).
Ergo, it doesn't really matter if they were organized into a nation or not.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Japan did try to hold Korea, and Hideyoshi would have conquered China too, if he was able to. Japan simply failed in its imperial ambitions at the time.
Sorry to disagree but Hideyoshi was barely able to unite all of Japan, he was far from being able to take on the sheer power of the Chinese empire at that time.
quote:What do you mean by tributary? China exercised significant influence (especially cultural) over Japan, but the country was essentially autonomous.
Yes Japan was in fact a tributary. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Manchuria, even Thailand, all were tributaries to China at some point. It was generally agreed that China was far more powerful then any of these lesser countries. It was advantageous then to pay yearly tribute to the emperor of China rather then challenge their "claim" over your lands.
China was very benevolent towards its tributaries. It virtually allowed them full autonomy and the gifts the emperor sent back with the tributary committee USUALLY were grander then the tribute, (It was important to the emperor that he demonstrate that he did not NEED your tribute.) All you had to put up with was China's claim to being the central kingdom, and the emperor being the son of heaven.
Japan more then once thumbed their noses at China when the Chinese tried to take a more hands on approach to Japan's government. But any reading of the diplomatic language they exchanged clearly illustrates China's dominant status to Japan. When the Mongols conquered China they attempted THEN to conquer both Japan and Vietnam rather then allow them to retain their autonomy. It was THEN that in the case of Japan well timed typhoons, and in the case of Vietnam, sheer determination, prevented China from conquering either country.
If only the US had taken a page from China's history book when they went to Vietnam. Then again if only Deng Xiao Ping had taken a page from China's own history before trying to invade Vietnam.
I really think facts point to 1930's Japan being the only real Empire in it's history.
This situation prevailed for so long that when Japan modernized its army in the late 1800's and early 1900's it invaded China via Korea under the pretext of, "Little Brother Japan must help older brother China find its way again."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you're welcome to come up with a better definition.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Japan did try to hold Korea, and Hideyoshi would have conquered China too, if he was able to. Japan simply failed in its imperial ambitions at the time.
Sorry to disagree but Hideyoshi was barely able to unite all of Japan, he was far from being able to take on the sheer power of the Chinese empire at that time.
Like I said, Hideyoshi failed. But he did intend to hold on to Korea, and did stay long enough (as you pointed out) to wreck the country. For that short period, Korea was under Japanese control. That is the behaviour of an empire, under the working definition. I'd be happy to reconsider if you prefer a less inclusive definition.
Re: Tributaries
Certainly, Japan paid tribute to China for much of its history. But by the Momoyama period, when Hideyoshi invaded Korea, those official relations had deteriorated. By that time China was already weakening (though Hideyoshi's ultimate ambition to conquer China was misguided to say the least). Also, even in the Muromachi period it's debatable whether the tribute system was just that, or a system of trade which might be beneficial to both parties.
quote:China was very benevolent towards its tributaries. It virtually allowed them full autonomy and the gifts the emperor sent back with the tributary committee USUALLY were grander then the tribute, (It was important to the emperor that he demonstrate that he did not NEED your tribute.) All you had to put up with was China's claim to being the central kingdom, and the emperor being the son of heaven.
Japan more then once thumbed their noses at China when the Chinese tried to take a more hands on approach to Japan's government. But any reading of the diplomatic language they exchanged clearly illustrates China's dominant status to Japan. When the Mongols conquered China they attempted THEN to conquer both Japan and Vietnam rather then allow them to retain their autonomy. It was THEN that in the case of Japan well timed typhoons, and in the case of Vietnam, sheer determination, prevented China from conquering either country.
This doesn't prevent Japan from having imperial ambitions of its own, and in Hideyoshi's period China was at the beginning of the end as far as being the Middle Kingdom was concerned.
I don't really disagree with anything you've said about tribute to China. Only that it doesn't make Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea anything other than an attempt at expansion.
Re: Japan being an empire only in the 30s
What of the Russo Japanese War? In 1905 Japan took Port Arthur with the full intention of holding it and using it as a base to expand its empire. It had to give up the port only because of pressure from Europe, which was shocked that an Asian nation could defeat Russia (partly considered a Western country). Japan was playing Europe's own imperialist game by this time.
There is also the First Sino-Japanese War (which you mentioned) in the late 19th century which shifted the centre of gravity in SEA from China to Japan, and the annexation of Korea in 1910.
I don't see how even the least inclusive definition of 'empire' could not include Meiji Japan.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So BlackBlade, I think I owe you an apology for:
quote:What do you mean by tributary? China exercised significant influence (especially cultural) over Japan, but the country was essentially autonomous.
What I'm saying is that by Momoyama times, the tributary relationship with Japan was largely defunct/becoming obsolete. IIRC, long before 1900 Japan was de facto autonomous in almost every respect. I'm open to corrections.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
EMPIRES BY APPROXIMATE DATE OF FIRST EMERGENCE
Elamite Akkadian Ur III Babylonian Egyptian Hittite Israel Assyrian Persian Magadhan Macedonian Mauryan Seleucid Chinese Parthian Roman Vietnamese Sassanian Palmyrene Teotihuacano Gupta Aksumite Byzantine Frankish Tibetan Arabian Bulgarian Chola Venetian Khmer Great Morovian Holy Roman Ghana Tu'i Tonga Ghaznavid Goguero Balhae Hungarian Seljuk Kongo Danish Nicaean Latin Trapezuntine Mongol Abyssinian Ottoman Majapahit Mali Serbian Vijayanagara Siam Aztec Golden Horde Songhai Malinke Timurid Incan Spanish Portugese Mughal Swedish British French Dutch Maratha Russian Sikh Haitian Austrian Mexican Brazilian Austro-Hungarian German Japanese Italian Korean American Belgian Soviet Nazi Central African
quote:The Medes and the Persians joined together to form what historians refer to as the "Medo-Persian Empire."
The Achaemenids (Cyrus II, specifically) reduced the Medes into a satrapy, so the empire was simply the Persian Empire.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Euripides: I think we more or less agree, though I will concede that by 1900 Japan was an empire and would continue to become more so until the end of WW2. So knock 30 years off my initial statement.
You should note that that in the Momoyama period China easily pushed Japan back out of Korea and laughed at Japan's terms for peace. Both invasions which took place within an 8 year period lasted less then one year. Japan could not back up its lofty demands for peace and it would have to wait until the Meiji Restoration before it really became an empire.
But remember that aside, were it not for those two importantly timed Typhoons it is very likely Japan would have found itself conquered by Mongol controlled China. Who can say what would have become of Japan from that time until the present?
One safe guess is we would not have had kamikaze suicide bombers Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lithuania had an empire for a while. Until it was taken over by Poland, and they had an empire for a while.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I recognise that Japan was routed and rebuffed fairly easily. But it wasn't a tributary at the time, IIRC. (I've looked for, but don't have with me at the moment any sources to back me up on that point)
Re: Japan during the invasion of Korea fitting the model of an empire I was splitting hairs, but I still believe it technically fits the definition.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But remember that aside, were it not for those two importantly timed Typhoons it is very likely Japan would have found itself conquered by Mongol controlled China. Who can say what would have become of Japan from that time until the present?
One safe guess is we would not have had kamikaze suicide bombers
Who knows? Japan has done a lot of ugly things since then, but I'm fairly happy overall that my country wasn't invaded by Kublai Khan. Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
