4 ms·
That's interesting! So that would mean that as we've studied empires we've realized that they were never particularly about ruling countries directly as we thou
by lucraft 6y ago
That's interesting! So that would mean that as we've studied empires we've realized that they were never particularly about ruling countries directly as we thought (and so as the word originally meant), the important identifying concept behind them was hegemony, power and influence?
- free_rms 6y agoThere's a continuum between direct central administration and tributary/vassal status. The Roman Empire, for example, often had big chunks of land that were entirely run by local people, but were 'part of the Roman Empire' as far as public perception. Look strong and all that. (this went back and forth in different places at different times, sometimes there was very strong central bureaucracy). The US, by contrast, insists that we're merely allies with all of these countries that host more US military power than they even have domestically, only buy US weapons, trade using our currency, scrupulously respect US intellectual property law, vote with us in the UN nearly 100% of the time.. it's a different political posture for a different time.