4 ms·

Empires on average last for 250 years. It's about time for the US to start losing power. Not only that America really doesn't know what to do about many of the

by x5n1 11y ago

Empires on average last for 250 years. It's about time for the US to start losing power. Not only that America really doesn't know what to do about many of the problems that it helped create. American capitalists helped create China, American foreign policy helped create the "new" Middle East. Which is an unstable hell hole and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future. http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/... page 4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

agumonkey 11y ago
Where did you get the 250 figure ? just curious.
- x5n1 11y ago
  http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/... page 4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Thanks a lot.
  - bsaul 11y ago
    Ottoman empire 250 years ?? I didn't read the whole book but to my knowledge, it started around 1300 and ended brutaly after WW1. Same goes for roman empire, they make it stop at 200AD, but i've always learned it lastest till 4th century. With those kind of figure bending you can pretty much say anything you want.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Ottoman empire stopped expanding and pretty much stagnated after about 250 years. America could see a similar fate. With robotics and economy and global problems it can't do much about... even meddle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_O...
    - Avalaxy 11y ago
      The Roman 'empire' actually lasted almost 2000 years when you take the eastern Roman empire (the Byzantine empire) into consideration. The Roman republic started in 509 BC, the eastern roman empire ended in 1453 AD. Btw, the western Roman empire ended in 476 AD. The ~200 number you mentioned probably refers to the split of the Roman empire into a western and an eastern part, in 284 AD.
bsaul 11y ago
I'm not sure americans are for anything in the current mess. China was a strong power for centuries thanks to its huge population and territory. It just lagged a bit behind and just catched up. Middle east has also been a mess for centuries ( at the minimum). Shiites vs sunnites is a forever running war, and you can't tell the US are really the root cause of it. As for saying "empires on average" , i don't think it means anything. Some lasted for more than 1000 years, other less than 5. But we don't have enough statistics to assume anything is "about time".
- x5n1 11y ago
  Yes I know America as a country loves to meddle everywhere but completely refuses to take responsibility for any of its actions. As for averages, see above. Yes we have a list of all human empires and there are outliers that are 1000 years old. I don't think America will be an outlier.
- honest_joe 11y ago
  Quite the opposite. China was a 2nd player due to its vast territory and population. Chinese are not homogeneous like Koreans for example when it comes to culture and one language. They were always hard to manage and hard to rule and organize. That's why they kept loosing to japanese, mongols, british and the US. China has to always pay attention to its neighbours. They can be economic dwarves compared to US or China but are extremely powerful when organized.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jwdunne 11y ago
Would be good to know how that figure came about! Are you sure this isn't skewed by maritime empires, such as the British and Spanish? The landmass based empires I study with interest have typically lasted more than twice that. The Roman Empire is one, which holds true if you consider both the Byzantine empire as separate and a continuation. The Ottomans, although not my interest, I do know lasted a long time. The HRE lasted much longer too. I understand that the average case is pulled in either direction from multiple empires but I think it's useful to compare with empires with similar qualities and their longevity as opposed to comparing against the average case. For example, comparing to Britain wouldn't make sense since the base of power was a much smaller landmass with a strong central governing tradition within the nation proper. Their empire was based on supreme naval and economic dominance, which was outmoded by the natural advance of technology. EDIT: I've just noted the link below. I wouldn't say that the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist at that point but was perhaps less strong. Is the fall of an empire the decline in strength or the point in which it is no longer deemed an empire?
- ido 11y ago
  the HRE was not really an empire, more of a loose confederation ('In a famous assessment of the name, the French Enlightenment writer Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."'[1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name
  - jwdunne 11y ago
    Could the same be said for the USA? Though a bit more tightly knit, states tend to have a degree of autonomy, each with representatives - the adjacency of States is also similar in a way to the HRE. The model of electing an emperor from the princes of each elector state holds some similarity is also somewhat significant in my opinion, though democratically much different.
    - ido 11y ago
      The USA is a federation but it's much more integrated - maybe the comparison holds more water against the early US in the late 18th and early 19th century.
pcrh 11y ago
The US rose as a significant international power only after WWI, so I guess it still has a way to go...
- x5n1 11y ago
  First of all America was a colony to begin with, until Independence. And since then it has been expanding by colonizing. It's been an Empire since the Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessi...
  - pcrh 11y ago
    The continental USA hasn't been considered an empire since the 1840's, any more then the UK is considered an "English Empire". I suppose the continental USA could be invaded by Mexico or Canada, in which case one would have to see a much more considerable reversal of fortunes than that being considered in the OP.
charlesray 11y ago
I simply don't believe any past statistics on things like this are relevant in the modern era.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I'm sure every person in the past connected to any one of those empires thought exactly the same thing. We can't really help thinking like that either, after all the present is so special, this time it will be different and history is already long gone.
  - charlesray 11y ago
    This is the first era in history in which we have a complete, unobstructed view of the world. We can communicate instantly with anyone, anywhere. We can share our culture and our ideals instantly with anyone, anywhere. What does this mean for traditional powers? Does it mean they will last longer or die sooner? I don't know the answer to that question. But to suggest that this era is not special is incredibly short-sighted.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      They said the same about the clipper ship, I'm sure at some point in time someone thought that smoke signals were a pretty good idea and that now all would be different. So yes, we can do all this stuff better, faster. It makes for a huge difference in degree and if that difference is large enough by itself it becomes a qualitative difference. But I think the mistake is to think that a change like that is enough to significantly decrease or increase our ability to build empires or to destroy them because those forces tend to balance out (assuming both sides have roughly equal access to the technology). That's why none of the other technological advances from the past made a huge difference either, the 'empire' that was expanding brought their technology with them, it became adapted and then was used against them or they simply regressed. The only times it worked was when the natives were entirely slaughtered or intermixed and those countries typically ended up declaring independence. Empire building is a losing business in the longer term, and there is no proof to date that a complete and unobstructed view of the world or instant communication are a key element to empire success (or failure).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bsbechtel 11y ago
Your other comments in this thread discount the actual length of time other empires that lasted longer than 250 years held power, and extend the length of time the U.S. has held empire-like power around the globe. While you might be right that the average is 250 years, the variance is high, and your arguments to defend your position are weak.
jganetsk 11y ago
Has America been an empire for 250 years? That's quite flattering. Especially given the fact that, 250 years ago, America was part of the British Empire. America only became the world's largest economy in the 1870s, after the Civil War, and only became a superpower after WW2. Also, please explain a statement like "American capitalists helped create China". I think the Chinese would laugh at a statement like that. If anyone "helped create China", it was the Soviet Union. Regarding creating the "new" Middle East, the 20th century Middle East was created by the UK and France and led to the formation of Israel, the definition of all the borders, and the control of strongman dictators over nearly every nation in the region. We can credit the USA for creating the dictatorship in Iran and destabilizing Iraq, but what's boiling over now is largely a result of nearly 100 years of pent-up shit that America most definitely did not put in place.

by x5n1 11y ago

agumonkey 11y ago

Where did you get the 250 figure ? just curious.

x5n1 11y ago
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/... page 4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Thanks a lot.
- bsaul 11y ago
  Ottoman empire 250 years ?? I didn't read the whole book but to my knowledge, it started around 1300 and ended brutaly after WW1. Same goes for roman empire, they make it stop at 200AD, but i've always learned it lastest till 4th century. With those kind of figure bending you can pretty much say anything you want.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Ottoman empire stopped expanding and pretty much stagnated after about 250 years. America could see a similar fate. With robotics and economy and global problems it can't do much about... even meddle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_and_reform_of_the_O...
  - Avalaxy 11y ago
    The Roman 'empire' actually lasted almost 2000 years when you take the eastern Roman empire (the Byzantine empire) into consideration. The Roman republic started in 509 BC, the eastern roman empire ended in 1453 AD. Btw, the western Roman empire ended in 476 AD. The ~200 number you mentioned probably refers to the split of the Roman empire into a western and an eastern part, in 284 AD.

bsaul 11y ago

I'm not sure americans are for anything in the current mess. China was a strong power for centuries thanks to its huge population and territory. It just lagged a bit behind and just catched up. Middle east has also been a mess for centuries ( at the minimum). Shiites vs sunnites is a forever running war, and you can't tell the US are really the root cause of it. As for saying "empires on average" , i don't think it means anything. Some lasted for more than 1000 years, other less than 5. But we don't have enough statistics to assume anything is "about time".

x5n1 11y ago
Yes I know America as a country loves to meddle everywhere but completely refuses to take responsibility for any of its actions. As for averages, see above. Yes we have a list of all human empires and there are outliers that are 1000 years old. I don't think America will be an outlier.
honest_joe 11y ago
Quite the opposite. China was a 2nd player due to its vast territory and population. Chinese are not homogeneous like Koreans for example when it comes to culture and one language. They were always hard to manage and hard to rule and organize. That's why they kept loosing to japanese, mongols, british and the US. China has to always pay attention to its neighbours. They can be economic dwarves compared to US or China but are extremely powerful when organized.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jwdunne 11y ago

Would be good to know how that figure came about! Are you sure this isn't skewed by maritime empires, such as the British and Spanish? The landmass based empires I study with interest have typically lasted more than twice that. The Roman Empire is one, which holds true if you consider both the Byzantine empire as separate and a continuation. The Ottomans, although not my interest, I do know lasted a long time. The HRE lasted much longer too. I understand that the average case is pulled in either direction from multiple empires but I think it's useful to compare with empires with similar qualities and their longevity as opposed to comparing against the average case. For example, comparing to Britain wouldn't make sense since the base of power was a much smaller landmass with a strong central governing tradition within the nation proper. Their empire was based on supreme naval and economic dominance, which was outmoded by the natural advance of technology. EDIT: I've just noted the link below. I wouldn't say that the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist at that point but was perhaps less strong. Is the fall of an empire the decline in strength or the point in which it is no longer deemed an empire?

ido 11y ago
the HRE was not really an empire, more of a loose confederation ('In a famous assessment of the name, the French Enlightenment writer Voltaire remarked sardonically: "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."'[1]) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Name
- jwdunne 11y ago
  Could the same be said for the USA? Though a bit more tightly knit, states tend to have a degree of autonomy, each with representatives - the adjacency of States is also similar in a way to the HRE. The model of electing an emperor from the princes of each elector state holds some similarity is also somewhat significant in my opinion, though democratically much different.
  - ido 11y ago
    The USA is a federation but it's much more integrated - maybe the comparison holds more water against the early US in the late 18th and early 19th century.

pcrh 11y ago

The US rose as a significant international power only after WWI, so I guess it still has a way to go...

x5n1 11y ago
First of all America was a colony to begin with, until Independence. And since then it has been expanding by colonizing. It's been an Empire since the Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessi...
- pcrh 11y ago
  The continental USA hasn't been considered an empire since the 1840's, any more then the UK is considered an "English Empire". I suppose the continental USA could be invaded by Mexico or Canada, in which case one would have to see a much more considerable reversal of fortunes than that being considered in the OP.

charlesray 11y ago

I simply don't believe any past statistics on things like this are relevant in the modern era.

jacquesm 11y ago
I'm sure every person in the past connected to any one of those empires thought exactly the same thing. We can't really help thinking like that either, after all the present is so special, this time it will be different and history is already long gone.
- charlesray 11y ago
  This is the first era in history in which we have a complete, unobstructed view of the world. We can communicate instantly with anyone, anywhere. We can share our culture and our ideals instantly with anyone, anywhere. What does this mean for traditional powers? Does it mean they will last longer or die sooner? I don't know the answer to that question. But to suggest that this era is not special is incredibly short-sighted.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    They said the same about the clipper ship, I'm sure at some point in time someone thought that smoke signals were a pretty good idea and that now all would be different. So yes, we can do all this stuff better, faster. It makes for a huge difference in degree and if that difference is large enough by itself it becomes a qualitative difference. But I think the mistake is to think that a change like that is enough to significantly decrease or increase our ability to build empires or to destroy them because those forces tend to balance out (assuming both sides have roughly equal access to the technology). That's why none of the other technological advances from the past made a huge difference either, the 'empire' that was expanding brought their technology with them, it became adapted and then was used against them or they simply regressed. The only times it worked was when the natives were entirely slaughtered or intermixed and those countries typically ended up declaring independence. Empire building is a losing business in the longer term, and there is no proof to date that a complete and unobstructed view of the world or instant communication are a key element to empire success (or failure).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bsbechtel 11y ago

Your other comments in this thread discount the actual length of time other empires that lasted longer than 250 years held power, and extend the length of time the U.S. has held empire-like power around the globe. While you might be right that the average is 250 years, the variance is high, and your arguments to defend your position are weak.

jganetsk 11y ago

Has America been an empire for 250 years? That's quite flattering. Especially given the fact that, 250 years ago, America was part of the British Empire. America only became the world's largest economy in the 1870s, after the Civil War, and only became a superpower after WW2. Also, please explain a statement like "American capitalists helped create China". I think the Chinese would laugh at a statement like that. If anyone "helped create China", it was the Soviet Union. Regarding creating the "new" Middle East, the 20th century Middle East was created by the UK and France and led to the formation of Israel, the definition of all the borders, and the control of strongman dictators over nearly every nation in the region. We can credit the USA for creating the dictatorship in Iran and destabilizing Iraq, but what's boiling over now is largely a result of nearly 100 years of pent-up shit that America most definitely did not put in place.