4 ms·
A lot of counter-cases are conflating specific conquests with the the overall empire. There will be exceptions (in both directions of closer & further) but I th
by wintogreen74 4y ago
A lot of counter-cases are conflating specific conquests with the the overall empire. There will be exceptions (in both directions of closer & further) but I think what the author is trying to do is set the radius of the empire, relative to a one or a few epicenters. I don't think the exact value is that important vs. the logistical impacts of distance and their influence on all aspects of controlling a geopolitical entity.
- kgeist 4y agoIf you take Russian Empire/USSR for example, most of the territories which have been lost are much closer to Moscow (Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Belarus, Georgia etc.) than the territories still under Moscow control (Siberia), so at least in the Russia's case, it's not about transportation at all.
- ComputerGuru 4y agoSiberia is kind of its own exception, though. I’d say they managed to keep Siberia - for reasons solely to do with Siberia - despite how bad they were at keeping the empire together, relatively speaking.
- thriftwy 4y agoIt's just that Siberia is predominantly populated by ethnic Russians and USSR did not succeed in growing any regional identity there.
- swagasaurus-rex 4y agoCanada de facto owns a huge amount of territory. Nobody else wants it. Vladivostok is desireable to many powers in the region, but it's also changed hands many times in recent history.
- notch656c 4y agoWhat lands are de facto Canada but not de jure Canada's?
- xapata 4y agoSounds like the "No True Scotsman" defense. "Oh, that was just an outlier. The real parts of the empire were ..."