Empires in general and morality

[GreyFox]

How is it that people can argue that Empires have been a force for good? As far as I can tell every Empire in history has been created through mass warfare and genocide, and at the end of the day they all collapsed ignominiously, a point that seems to be lost on those who argue that this empire was better than that empire.

One can attempt to argue that, say the British Empire brought justice and roads to certain areas of the world, but at the cost of mass warfare and the odd bit of genocide (like the smallpox-infested blankets for Indians or the policies that starved a million Irish to death and forced another couple of million to flee abroad).

Another argument is that longevity or size determines whether an empire is truly great or not, yet neither really holds up - the Roman empire lasted a fair while sure, but for half of its existence it was wracked by a series of civil wars and invasions that tore it apart. One can argue that the British Empire was the greatest because it was the biggest, but it barely lasted 150 years before being checked by the First World War and utterly and irrevocably eclipsed in the Second. It had the size, but it just didn't have the endurance to go toe-to-toe with another industrialised European nation, and then it fell apart.

Well, anyone want a debate on this?

[Habelo]

Ok first off, without the roman empire counqering europe we wouldnt be as advanced in architecture or in science as we are now. We would also however be a way more happier people with real justice and much less hipocracy(not to talk about to lovely diversety of culture we would have, now its just one dominating culture around the world).
This is however 2 perspectives on what is good. Do you want the earth to be filled with people loving their lifes or tall buildings. If you favour the later- then the roman empire was a positive thing.

And well if you want to talk about colonization... That pretty much ed up the world Some countries: Colombia, cuba, mexico,- hell the whole of south america, and the whole of africa. Would you consider these places to have anything positive? I bet you dont, no matter what perspective you see the world in.

And the greatest Empire of all time is without a doubt Rome. Considering that they owned the church after their official downfall. Without the power of rome, the crusades wouldnt had happened- that means they had alot of power.

[.K.]

"Ok first off, without the roman empire counqering europe we wouldnt be as advanced in architecture or in science as we are now."

How's Stonehenge for advancement in architecture and science, lol? If we hadn't lost all traces of the architectural math and astronomical science behind THAT, we'd be able to advance in other ways from where we are today. And enormous Viking Ships? They sound sort of advanced for that age to me. Point taken, though: the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians we were influenced by DID revolutionize Europe. However, that was not until AFTER the middle ages, when humanism and whatnot rebirthed. And the Roman Empire CAUSED the feudalism of the middle ages--hundreds of years when we COULD have been advancing but didn't. Anyway, besides the aqueducts, walls, etc, the Romans didn't contribute much of their architectural and scientific ideas to the rest of Europe: those mostly remained in Italy--you couldn't find a Bramante dome from the time period virtually anywhere else in Europe. Trade between equally powerful nations (Rome and Northern Europe) would have been far more effective.

"And well if you want to talk about colonization... That pretty much ed up the world Some countries: Colombia, cuba, mexico,- hell the whole of south america, and the whole of africa. Would you consider these places to have anything positive? I bet you dont, no matter what perspective you see the world in."

I know what you're saying and I agree, but when you say "would you consider these places to have anything positive?" I say, "Certainly!", not just meaning Columbian drugs and coffee. These cultures were devastated by imperialism, but the fact that I WOULD consider these places "to have anything positive" is the reason why I think Imperialism shouldn't have happened in the first place.

"And the greatest Empire of all time is without a doubt Rome. Considering that they owned the church after their official downfall. Without the power of rome, the crusades wouldnt had happened- that means they had alot of power."

Wait--what?? The official Roman church was Pagan. Though Byzantium was different, I don't think that REALLY counts. Besides, the church wasn't "owned" by anyone but the church. It's not like Rome said "OK, we're dying, so we'll buy over half the stocks of the 'Roman' Catholic Church which is tangentially aligned to what we sort of began to believe but persecuted heavily. This way we can survive, not as an empire, but as a sort of random, uncentralized, church-ruler-starter-thing. That'll show 'em who's boss!" Uh, no. If Rome really left a religious legacy, the middle ages would have been Pagan...which would have been sort of cool, but sorry, it didn't happen.

[gaius valerius]

How is it that people can argue that Empires have been a force for good? As far as I can tell every Empire in history has been created through mass warfare and genocide, and at the end of the day they all collapsed ignominiously, a point that seems to be lost on those who argue that this empire was better than that empire.

I think you should stop seeing history in terms of 'good' and 'bad'. Nothing is certain and every coin has 2 sides.

[MaximiIian]

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, as the saying goes.
In any case, history is almost never black and white. It is many, many shades of grey and a couple shades of blue thrown in for good measure.

[favre4ever]

Secularism is the first to be pressed and stressed, as most empires generally try to shoot for a homogenus people. So if you like to live your life worshipping many gods or prefer to shoot white rhinos, then you should strive to get out of an empire. It is generally accepted today that empires were very good AND very bad, and little in the middle. With all the greatness that the romans were able to achieve (roads, military, peace (cough) architecture etc) They still enslaved millions, basically erased Carthiginian culture, and spat out the now famous Christian religion that has been the spawn of countless more good and bad things (very general here).
I for one am against Empires unless i am leading it myself or in a position for a coup. And in that case, i would agree that morality is also a victim of most empires.

[bushbush]

it's awfully tough to judge history with your own morality though...what are you trying to do by going down that road?

[favre4ever]

But how else would you judge it? I cant let others be my moral compass. Honestly just having an opinion is dangerous sometimes (in an empire). How happy do you think politicians in America are that the voter turnout is at a whopping 50% +/- 10% sometimes. I am not saying that the U.S. is an empire, but the individual suffers most when positioned within an empire unless that individual is on the top...

[bushbush]

But how else would you judge it? I cant let others be my moral compass. Honestly just having an opinion is dangerous sometimes (in an empire). How happy do you think politicians in America are that the voter turnout is at a whopping 50% +/- 10% sometimes. I am not saying that the U.S. is an empire, but the individual suffers most when positioned within an empire unless that individual is on the top...

um..studying history is about getting the fact right, not presenting a moral judgment. It's unfair to use your standard to judge...shall we say the romans when they had a different morality system.

[gaius valerius]

But how else would you judge it? I cant let others be my moral compass. Honestly just having an opinion is dangerous sometimes (in an empire). How happy do you think politicians in America are that the voter turnout is at a whopping 50% +/- 10% sometimes. I am not saying that the U.S. is an empire, but the individual suffers most when positioned within an empire unless that individual is on the top...

The morals and values of a Roman were different from those you adhere to. Simple fact.

I thought this thread was about: if empires have left a good mark on the world; yes or no.?

am i wrong or is everyone else wrong?

Wrong read the very very first line of the OP. But what you said to an extend wasn't entirely missing the point.

Personally, I believe the Empires of our history have had an overall positive impact on the world. There are exceptions ofcourse, but all things weighed and accounted for I think the benefits that the Ancient Empires had on Europe were positive and the Colonial Age powers brought the world onto a single stage which I, again, feel brought with it a massive leap forward in society and globalisation.

Perhaps, cause that is the history as how it has happened. But we can also clearly distinguish many parallel processes being terminated by the advance of certain empires/cultures, etc. We can't say how those would have turned out and what if's are pointless anyway, but we can clearly distinguish such processes.

[Poach]

Perhaps, cause that is the history as how it has happened. But we can also clearly distinguish many parallel processes being terminated by the advance of certain empires/cultures, etc. We can't say how those would have turned out and what if's are pointless anyway, but we can clearly distinguish such processes.

You make a good point, but going into alternate history just becomes more and more absurd. With what we've got, I think it turned out largely beneficial in the end.

[gaius valerius]

You make a good point, but going into alternate history just becomes more and more absurd. With what we've got, I think it turned out largely beneficial in the end.

That's why I said that alternate history is indeed useless, we can only point out the known alternatives at the time. For example the Roman culture was flourishing during the Republic, at the same time we see in southern Gaul a profound influence of the Mediterannean world, relatively democratic city-states (not unlike Rome in superficial terms) were emerging. We can't tell what this would have led to, since the Romans crushed this culture and incorporated it into their own sphere. You can find many examples like this.

[nopasties]

Morality has little to do with empire. Cyrus the Great IMO is one of the few people who created an empire for the better. The Persian Empire was not a good empire when his sucessors took over though. Any goodness in history is only temporary or served a political purpose. Arguing over greater good or the lesser of two evils will surely devolve into a 'bad' arguement.

[UnitedIreland]

It really comes down to what your comparing the various Empires to. If its size then the British was best etc. To say empires were bad is stupid, its like saying that governments are bad because certain actions they take led to people losing their lives. To determine wheather an empire is good or bad, we need to compare what they brought to the world and on that basis, the Roman Empire kicks everyones ass!

[Henry X]

Personally, I like being civilized, so the Romans were pretty good in my book. I also like Nazi Germany; it got America off its ass and made it into the superpower it is.

[Dodge]

Personally, I like being civilized, so the Romans were pretty good in my book. I also like Nazi Germany; it got America off its ass and made it into the superpower it is.

Funny, I always thought that the Soviet Union did that.

[rez]

Rez? Is it the case that slavery for Persians, or Medes was outlawed. I can see that Imperial power often allows one to shift ugly polices off to others you control or can buy. If that is the case than Persia is hardly unique in that respect. In any case I think the evidence is robust that at least for subjects Persia made no attempt to ban slavery and frankly was unlikely to since that would no doubt disrupt otherwise peaceful places that were paying tribute - the King had enough issues with troublesome places like Egypt and Greeks or northern nomads

Slavery In Persia proper is assumed to have been non-existant because of their lack of word for slaves in the traditional sense and also their treatment of relocated P.O.Ws (I.E payment for service, keeping families together, no actual private ownership).

But at the same time we simply don't have the records to prove they didn't have personal slaves later on. They had a system that was largely state controlled collections of people put to use on state projects. They didn't interfere with other nations' structures where they could avoid it and so banning slavery would likely be the stupidest thing they could possibly do, especially in Babylon. Moreover we have countless documents, which you have already cited, that show slavery was rife within the empire.

Three points that tend to evade people are as such:

1. That because Cyrus released the Jewish P.O.W population of Babylon this does not mean he did the same for anybody else.

2. That because the Persians in actual Persian society seemingly did not have personal slaves this does not mean that slavery did not occur elsewhere in the empire, even under Persian authority.

3. The Persian system of state controlled P.O.W's is still a form of slavery.

[Homeros]

How is it that people can argue that Empires have been a force for good? As far as I can tell every Empire in history has been created through mass warfare and genocide, and at the end of the day they all collapsed ignominiously, a point that seems to be lost on those who argue that this empire was better than that empire.

The European Union is the first 'Empire' that's not forged by the sword. States joined voluntarily instead of being forced into the EU. The traditional 'Empires' you're referring to, where not created to do 'good', but only to gain power & wealth.

[Poach]

Empires have been forces for good and bad. To say all Empires were bad would be ignoring the massive benefits the Romans brought to Europe, for example. You might say the age of colonisation was bad, but again you'd be ignoring all the good that came out of it: globalisation, expansion of trade and commerce, creation of new nations. Yes, not all turned out splendid, but with the exception of Africa (which is their fault, not Europes: we didn't put those dictators in charge. The rest of the ex-colonial world managed to get their act together) I can't think of any old colonial states that are a complete mess, and several are fully modern states: the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. India is rising quickly, Brazil is also emerging.

Yes, bad came of it too. Mismanagement and marginalisation of certain groups ended up causing great suffering.

I'd like to specifically pick out your mention of the Irish potato famine and your assumption that the British government allowed them to starve. You're presenting one side of the argument, Peel imported £100,000 worth of corn into Ireland to combat the lack of food and repealed the laws that kept bread prices high in an attempt to alleviate the situation and attempted to set up a public works program. He was, however, removed from Office shortly after and his replacement didn't do much else, eventually shutting down the public works program under the current economic wisdom of the day, "lassaiz-faire" I think they called it, a belief that government intervention in the market was ill-advised and the market would stabilise itself. This, ofcourse, made the situation worse.

It is a cause taken up by Irish Nationalists that the evil British government was the cause of the famine and that their greed was to blame. They're biased because they're nationalists, the British government post-Peel was partly to blame as they stuck to their hands off approach to economics and the market, but equal blame goes to merchants, many of them Irish, who kept exporting massive quantities of food out of Ireland (an attempt had been made to stop this in a much earlier famine which the merchants had lobbied against and broken and thus wasn't implemented in the great hunger) rather than keeping it in the country. Further to this, blame rests with landlords who didn't take care of their tenants.

As you can see, the British government shares only part of the blame, not all of it as many seem to believe...

[Barry Goldwater]

History is never black & white, only black & varying shades of gray.