3 ms·

> I can't really think of a meaningful definition that would single out European powers between the 16th and early 20th century >> the policy or practice of ac

by orwin 4y ago

> I can't really think of a meaningful definition that would single out European powers between the 16th and early 20th century >> the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people. Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. I do not know a lot about China, but Sinicisation seems to fit colonial markers, so the first empire to really colonize should be chinese? The Umayad Califate in some sense too, but I think i'm missing the idea of "pressure" and "force" in the definition.

namdnay 4y ago
> acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people off the top of my head, both Roman Britain and Roman Egypt fit this one perfectly. The "exploitation" wasn't purely negative, just like the exploitation of colonies by Britain or France wasn't purely negative, but it was still exploitation.
- Macha 4y ago
  Even for stuff that most people would think of as "core" Roman territory like modern day France and Northern Italy initially went through this. The settlers were often ex-military and enabling them to settle was a big part of how the roman military rewarded its soldiers
barry-cotter 4y ago
> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. Latin was originally spoken in a small part of central Italy. By 400 it was spoken in all of Italy, Gaul, Hispania, the North African coast, substantial parts of what is modern Germany and the Low Countries, Dacia (Romania) and was no doubt still spoken in Britain. That happened through conquest, not voluntary accession.
shakow 4y ago
> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. You obviously have no knowledge of Europe/North Africa/Asia Minor Antique Era; your definition is perfectly accurate for both the Egyptian and the Roman empires (and many others, from the Assyrians to Hittites through the Persians, the Greeks [ever wondered where the “pont” in “pontus region” is coming from?] and the Carthaginians). > full or partial political control over another country The definition of an empire. > occupying it with settlers Exactly what the Romans did in Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Illyria, Hispania, Anglia, Magna Graecia, Sicilia, Batavia, Helvetia, Thracia, Egypt, Judea, Mauritania, etc. You should know that gifting a plot of land somewhere in the Empire to veterans to compensate them for their service was both a way to motivate them and spread Roman culture and way of life. > and exploiting it economically Wars were among the big sources of slave labor. > while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people. Spoiler alert: the “Roman” in Gallo-Roman is not endogeneous, and nowadays romance language share the same ancestor language for a very simple reason. And if everywhere from London to Benghazi and Porto to Ankara is covered in Roman ruins, it's not because aliens put them there. And the story is exactly the same for the Egyptian Empire: Syria, Kush, Nubia, Lybia and Canaan are not the cradle of the Egpytian dynasties. > so the first empire to really colonize should be chinese? The first empire to really colonize is probably dating back to before there was writing to remember its name. > The Umayad Califate [...] missing the idea of "pressure" and "force" Ah yes, of course, Christian Spain voluntarily got incorporated into the Califate, and the famous battle they had with the Franks in the middle of France was but a playful tourney... sweeping military expansion is a major characteristic of the Umayad caliphate.
prepend 4y ago
> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. The Gauls, Celts, and many other colonized peoples may beg to differ.

by orwin 4y ago

namdnay 4y ago

> acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people off the top of my head, both Roman Britain and Roman Egypt fit this one perfectly. The "exploitation" wasn't purely negative, just like the exploitation of colonies by Britain or France wasn't purely negative, but it was still exploitation.

Macha 4y ago
Even for stuff that most people would think of as "core" Roman territory like modern day France and Northern Italy initially went through this. The settlers were often ex-military and enabling them to settle was a big part of how the roman military rewarded its soldiers

barry-cotter 4y ago

> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. Latin was originally spoken in a small part of central Italy. By 400 it was spoken in all of Italy, Gaul, Hispania, the North African coast, substantial parts of what is modern Germany and the Low Countries, Dacia (Romania) and was no doubt still spoken in Britain. That happened through conquest, not voluntary accession.

shakow 4y ago

> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. You obviously have no knowledge of Europe/North Africa/Asia Minor Antique Era; your definition is perfectly accurate for both the Egyptian and the Roman empires (and many others, from the Assyrians to Hittites through the Persians, the Greeks [ever wondered where the “pont” in “pontus region” is coming from?] and the Carthaginians). > full or partial political control over another country The definition of an empire. > occupying it with settlers Exactly what the Romans did in Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Illyria, Hispania, Anglia, Magna Graecia, Sicilia, Batavia, Helvetia, Thracia, Egypt, Judea, Mauritania, etc. You should know that gifting a plot of land somewhere in the Empire to veterans to compensate them for their service was both a way to motivate them and spread Roman culture and way of life. > and exploiting it economically Wars were among the big sources of slave labor. > while forcing its own language and cultural values upon its people. Spoiler alert: the “Roman” in Gallo-Roman is not endogeneous, and nowadays romance language share the same ancestor language for a very simple reason. And if everywhere from London to Benghazi and Porto to Ankara is covered in Roman ruins, it's not because aliens put them there. And the story is exactly the same for the Egyptian Empire: Syria, Kush, Nubia, Lybia and Canaan are not the cradle of the Egpytian dynasties. > so the first empire to really colonize should be chinese? The first empire to really colonize is probably dating back to before there was writing to remember its name. > The Umayad Califate [...] missing the idea of "pressure" and "force" Ah yes, of course, Christian Spain voluntarily got incorporated into the Califate, and the famous battle they had with the Franks in the middle of France was but a playful tourney... sweeping military expansion is a major characteristic of the Umayad caliphate.

prepend 4y ago

> Ancient Egypt and the Roman empire weren't colonial powers by this definition. The Gauls, Celts, and many other colonized peoples may beg to differ.