Your Favorite Empire

[North Suran]

Cyrus the Great was greeted as a liberator in Mesopotamia, which a certain modern leader has failed at doing.

Not to derail the thread, but US forces were greeted as liberators in Iraq. It was only when the occupation got underway that popular opinion turned sharply against them - as is the case for most empires.

[Merathaim]

Yes, prior to Rome the Europeans were basically just a bunch of half-naked white guys running around in the forest. Very tribal, and very savage (or the ones who survived were, anyway).

Sorry, but that's pure hogwash. The whole "Europeans as savages" line was peddled by the Romans to justify their conquest, on the basis that they were bringing civilisation to the uncivilised. Recent evidence indicates that the Gauls and the Celts, for example, were far more civilised and domesticated than Roman sources made them out to be.

That savagery stayed with them for a long time too, even after they started forming nations and empires. Rome itself was pretty brutal.

Savagery isn't inherently European.

Never said they were evil or stupid, and I never said that only they were savage. They were probably pretty similar to Native Americans: living in tents very similar to tipi, or longhouses. Many had semi-nomadic life-styles, etc. Of course, there may have been some limited agriculture, as well.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, but the white Europeans were very tribal, for the most part. At least, far more-so than most people realize. I'm white myself, by the way.

[Conserative Morality]

That's a given, but 13th century Europe wasn't exactly a hellhole.

Uh, perhaps if you were Nobility. Not always even then. Outside of Flanders and Holland, Medieval Europe was pretty miserable.

Sorry, but that's pure hogwash. The whole "Europeans as savages" line was peddled by the Romans to justify their conquest, on the basis that they were bringing civilisation to the uncivilised. Recent evidence indicates that the Gauls and the Celts, for example, were far more civilised and domesticated than Roman sources made them out to be.

Really? And how exactly did Roman sources make them out to be?

I hate to break this to you, but Rome did not claim the 'Bringing Civilization to the uncivilized' bull that empires like the British Empire pulled. The Romans fought because they felt threatened or had their allies attacked. Read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico for a good example of why the Romans fought.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Really? And how exactly did Roman sources make them out to be?

I hate to break this to you, but Rome did not claim the 'Bringing Civilization to the uncivilized' bull that empires like the British Empire pulled. The Romans fought because they felt threatened or had their allies attacked. Read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico for a good example of why the Romans fought.

I don't think the Roman Republic had a unified grand strategy regarding their foreign policy anyway.

Just individual ambitious generals hoping to make a political career for themselves.

See for instance, Crassus's bizzare adventure against the Parthians.

[Mediterreania]

Cyrus the Great was greeted as a liberator in Mesopotamia, which a certain modern leader has failed at doing.

Not to derail the thread, but US forces were greeted as liberators in Iraq. It was only when the occupation got underway that popular opinion turned sharply against them - as is the case for most empires.

But the Achaemenids successfully integrated Babylon into their empire, with the equal rights that cames with it.

[Neo Athena]

My personal favourite is the German Empire, and Prussia before it. Their empire might not have been large or long-lasting, but damn they had style. And zeppelins. Not to mention the badass personalities, such as "mad" King Ludwig II of Bavaria, General von Lettow-Vorbeck, and the "Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck.

The British Empire comes in a very close second. Even though it's gone, I identify with the British Empire more than my own country (Canada). I ask you which is better: a grand empire that once ruled 1/5 of the world's land and 1/4 of its population, and made great strides in science, technology, exploration, and engineering that remain unparalelled to this day OR, a powerless, passive-aggressive, American satellite state? That's what I thought.

Lastly, even though it doesn't really count, my third favourite is the empire of His Imperial Majesty, Norton I, Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico. He was quite a guy.

[Conserative Morality]

The British Empire comes in a very close second. Even though it's gone, I identify with the British Empire more than my own country (Canada). I ask you which is better: a grand empire that once ruled 1/5 of the world's land and 1/4 of its population, and made great strides in science, technology, exploration, and engineering that remain unparalelled to this day OR, a powerless, passive-aggressive, American satellite state? That's what I thought.

You do realize that the UK is really in the same boat as Canada, right?

[North Suran]

That's a given, but 13th century Europe wasn't exactly a hellhole.

Uh, perhaps if you were Nobility. Not always even then. Outside of Flanders and Holland, Medieval Europe was pretty miserable.

The Early Middle Ages, perhaps, but certainly not the High Middle Ages - which is when the Mongol Empire was kicking around. The High Middle Ages were a time of economic expansion, population growth and artistic development. It is plainly ignorant to take over a thousand years of history and just dismiss it out of hand. It doesn't help that, since the Renaissance was dominated by romano- and hellenophilia, people tended to diminish the importance of the Middle Ages.

Sorry, but that's pure hogwash. The whole "Europeans as savages" line was peddled by the Romans to justify their conquest, on the basis that they were bringing civilisation to the uncivilised. Recent evidence indicates that the Gauls and the Celts, for example, were far more civilised and domesticated than Roman sources made them out to be.

Really? And how exactly did Roman sources make them out to be?

As marauding savages, essentially. Which was inaccurate.

I hate to break this to you, but Rome did not claim the 'Bringing Civilization to the uncivilized' bull that empires like the British Empire pulled. The Romans fought because they felt threatened or had their allies attacked. Read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico for a good example of why the Romans fought.

The Romans claimed they were bringing civilization - just as every other empire did. They also used the justification of defending themselves - just as every other empire did. The British, remember, originally carved up India in an effort to prevent the French from gaining a foothold there. I hate to break it to you, but Ancient Rome was not unique.

[Sdaeriji]

Don't do it. I know where this is going.

Where do you think it's going? A rant on how the Mongolians have been misrepresented as brutish barbarians and murderers instead of the (Relatively) progressive, meritocratic, and secure government when the Kingdoms of Europe were plagued by bandits masquerading as knights, religious intolerance, and an entrenched aristocracy?

Actually, no. I was expecting the usual tirade about how they unified Asia and allowed trade and the exchange of science blah blah blah.

To your actual point, though, its right to call the Mongols' government progressive for the time for all the people that they didn't kill, but they were rightly known for their particular brutality in warfare, even by the standards of the age.

[Conserative Morality]

The Early Middle Ages, perhaps, but certainly not the High Middle Ages - which is when the Mongol Empire was kicking around. The High Middle Ages were a time of economic expansion, population growth and artistic development. It is just plainly ignorant to take over a thousand years of history and just dismiss it out of hand. It doesn't help that, since the Renaissance was dominated by romano- and hellenophilia, people tended to diminish the importance of the Middle Ages.

The Renaissance was a time of artistic development, the High Middle Ages outside of Flanders, Holland, and Hungary was still very backwards.

As marauding savages, essentially. Which was inaccurate.

Really? I don't seem to remember major inaccuracies in Roman accounts. Care to show a few examples?

The Romans claimed they were bringing civilization - just as every other empire did. They also used the justification of defending themselves - just as every other empire did. The British, remember, originally carved up India in an effort to prevent the French from gaining a foothold there. I hate to break it to you, but Ancient Rome was not unique.

Please then, give me your source. Show me where Rome claimed to bring civilization to the savages. The idea that Rome had such a mission is very much a recent idea.

[Conserative Morality]

Actually, no. I was expecting the usual tirade about how they unified Asia and allowed trade and the exchange of science blah blah blah.

To your actual point, though, its right to call the Mongols' government progressive for the time for all the people that they didn't kill, but they were rightly known for their particular brutality in warfare, even by the standards of the age.

Limits on brutality in warfare, at the time, really only applied to treating the aristocracy properly, which the Mongols refused to do.

[Keronians]

Where are the Mongols? There needs to be such an option there... They were so much better than the British and the Romans... Viva Genghis Khan! They were the second largest empire in history, and some historians even suggest that the First World War was actually the Second World War because of the wars of the Mongols.

[Neo Athena]

by Conserative Morality » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:03 pm
Neo Athena wrote:
The British Empire comes in a very close second. Even though it's gone, I identify with the British Empire more than my own country (Canada). I ask you which is better: a grand empire that once ruled 1/5 of the world's land and 1/4 of its population, and made great strides in science, technology, exploration, and engineering that remain unparalelled to this day OR, a powerless, passive-aggressive, American satellite state? That's what I thought.

You do realize that the UK is really in the same boat as Canada, right?

All the more reason for both of us to stop feeling sorry for ourselves, get together and show some backbone. If we did it once, we can do it again.

[Mgalekgolo]

American Empire



Well, should rather be called "America's Sphere of Influence"

[Fedeledland]

NATO and/or U.S-allied nations are not part of an Empire. It's like saying that the EU is the European Empire because it has several joint nations. Or that the Arab States Alliance is an Empire because it holds most Arab states. No.

[Kleomentia]

Byzantine Empire,i just adore them for many reasons.First of all they are the Romans,then the fact that they survived so many years and changed the Earth trough many years.Even though my homeland was at war with them for many years i just adore them.

They weren't really Romans...

Actually if you would look closely in history they never called them self "The Byzantine Empire" but "The Kingdom of Romans".But Since history is controlled by the victors then we today know it as Byzantia.

[North Suran]

They weren't really Romans...

Actually if you would look closely in history they never called them self "The Byzantine Empire" but "The Kingdom of Romans".But Since history is controlled by the victors then we today know it as Byzantia.

They called themselves Romania - just as the First Reich called itself the Holy Roman Empire. That doesn't mean they were Romans. They soon abandoned the vestiges of Old Rome for a Greek-flavoured medieval monarchy.

And people refer to the Byzantine Empire as such in order to distinguish it from Ancient Rome.

[Kyraina]

Actually if you would look closely in history they never called them self "The Byzantine Empire" but "The Kingdom of Romans".But Since history is controlled by the victors then we today know it as Byzantia.

They called themselves Romania - just as the First Reich called itself the Holy Roman Empire. That doesn't mean they were Romans. They soon abandoned the vestiges of Old Rome for a Greek-flavoured medieval monarchy.

And people refer to the Byzantine Empire as such in order to distinguish it from Ancient Rome.

Yet the Frist Officals and Rulers of Byzantine Empire Had Roman Blood but that slowly deminish

[Maltropia]

The Byzantine Empire was a successor state to Rome in a way the Holy Roman Empire never was. Byzantium, though founded by the Greeks, was conquered by Rome. Germany wasn't. The "Byzantine" Empire was referred to as the Eastern Empire; it had a separate administration to the west, but was regardless ruled by the same people. When the west fell the east carried on, still very much Roman. Yes, they adopted much of their method from the Greeks and even the Turks, but they were Roman nonetheless.

The Holy Roman Empire was not Roman. It wasn't even a successor state to Rome - at least the Byzantines owned Rome at one point. The HRE, whether or not its goal was renovatio imperii, barely attempted to conquer Rome. In what way was it reminiscent of Rome? Petty squabbles over land, an elected monarch - it barely even overlapped with the ancient Roman borders at all! Byzantium existed at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire, but was far more visibly Roman. The glory of Constantinople far surpassed even the greatest cities of the HRE, in the same way Rome did.

Byzantium was Rome. The HRE was just a cheap imitation.

[Kyraina]

The Byzantine Empire was a successor state to Rome in a way the Holy Roman Empire never was. Byzantium, though founded by the Greeks, was conquered by Rome. Germany wasn't. The "Byzantine" Empire was referred to as the Eastern Empire; it had a separate administration to the west, but was regardless ruled by the same people. When the west fell the east carried on, still very much Roman. Yes, they adopted much of their method from the Greeks and even the Turks, but they were Roman nonetheless.

The Holy Roman Empire was not Roman. It wasn't even a successor state to Rome - at least the Byzantines owned Rome at one point. The HRE, whether or not its goal was renovatio imperii, barely attempted to conquer Rome. In what way was it reminiscent of Rome? Petty squabbles over land, an elected monarch - it barely even overlapped with the ancient Roman borders at all! Byzantium existed at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire, but was far more visibly Roman. The glory of Constantinople far surpassed even the greatest cities of the HRE, in the same way Rome did.

Byzantium was Rome. The HRE was just a cheap imitation.

Yet Byzantium wasnt Rome But HRE was a Crusader State and The Leader Was Choosen By The Pope himself most the time. Byzantium wastn Rome Cuz after a Few leaders the Roman Blood was Gone and because of their lack in Military Strength Unlike The Roman Empire who Fell Do to Curroption Byzantium Fall cuz they sent most of their Troops to Fight in The "Crusades" leaving not enough Man Power to Protect Constine where HRE fell cuz they never had a strong leader after Fredrick The Great Died in The River Jordon

[RobCo Industries]

Out of the ones listed, and not to go with the token answer of Rome, I'd pick the Japanese Empire. Maybe it's because I'm reading a book on them during World War II, but I still love the culture behind it in any case.

[Kyraina]

i agree with that and Americas "Empire" Surivies Today

[Maltropia]

Yet Byzantium wasnt Rome But HRE was a Crusader State and The Leader Was Choosen By The Pope himself most the time. Byzantium wastn Rome Cuz after a Few leaders the Roman Blood was Gone and because of their lack in Military Strength Unlike The Roman Empire who Fell Do to Curroption Byzantium Fall cuz they sent most of their Troops to Fight in The "Crusades" leaving not enough Man Power to Protect Constine where HRE fell cuz they never had a strong leader after Fredrick The Great Died in The River Jordon

The HRE was not a crusader state. It wasn't even a state. It was a confederacy of Germanic peoples, operating under a name that made them sound Roman, but who spent most of their time killing each other. The leader wasn't chosen by the Pope, he simply crowned whoever the Prince-electors chose.
The Byzantines didn't fight in the Crusades - where are you getting that idea from? Crusader states like Venice and Genoa ransacked Byzantium, which was Orthodox and wouldn't have answered a call to Crusade anyway.

[Serrland]

Yet Byzantium wasnt Rome But HRE was a Crusader State and The Leader Was Choosen By The Pope himself most the time. Byzantium wastn Rome Cuz after a Few leaders the Roman Blood was Gone and because of their lack in Military Strength Unlike The Roman Empire who Fell Do to Curroption Byzantium Fall cuz they sent most of their Troops to Fight in The "Crusades" leaving not enough Man Power to Protect Constine where HRE fell cuz they never had a strong leader after Fredrick The Great Died in The River Jordon

The HRE was not a crusader state. It wasn't even a state. It was a confederacy of Germanic peoples, operating under a name that made them sound Roman, but who spent most of their time killing each other. The leader wasn't chosen by the Pope, he simply crowned whoever the Prince-electors chose.
The Byzantines didn't fight in the Crusades - where are you getting that idea from? Crusader states like Venice and Genoa ransacked Byzantium, which was Orthodox and wouldn't have answered a call to Crusade anyway.

I mean, I guess you could, in the broadest sense of the word, describe that Byzantine wars against the Sultanate of Rum as a Crusade, but that's a real stretch.

[Maltropia]

The HRE was not a crusader state. It wasn't even a state. It was a confederacy of Germanic peoples, operating under a name that made them sound Roman, but who spent most of their time killing each other. The leader wasn't chosen by the Pope, he simply crowned whoever the Prince-electors chose.
The Byzantines didn't fight in the Crusades - where are you getting that idea from? Crusader states like Venice and Genoa ransacked Byzantium, which was Orthodox and wouldn't have answered a call to Crusade anyway.

I mean, I guess you could, in the broadest sense of the word, describe that Byzantine wars against the Sultanate of Rum as a Crusade, but that's a real stretch.

That was more them attempting to reclaim former Roman territory than anything. The wars probably would have happened even if Rum hadn't been Muslim.