4 ms·

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 empire

by 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.
mseebach 11y ago
America is nothing if not a maritime empire. But I think there's a very substantial difference between empires past and the american one: Cheap, ubiquitous, high speed communications and ditto + safe travel. Managing far-flung territories in the British and Spanish empires caused major, major friction, in a way that just isn't the case in the present day. Back then, colonial service was a life career, and you'd spend years at a time deployed overseas. Letters took weeks to turn around. Today, if you need the help of a specialist, you pick up the phone, or you could even easily fly one out and he'll be there tomorrow or the day after, and he'll be back home a few days later still.
- XorNot 11y ago
  Pretending a maritime empire is relevant in an age of ICBMs and jet travel is just foolish. All these "lessons from history" always fail to take into account the serious, radical differences in technological capability.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    You can't project power with ICBMs like you can with an aircraft carrier. A lot of American might is still inextricably linked with maritime power, purely because of those aircraft carriers and the support fleet that accompanies it.
  - gurkendoktor 11y ago
    I'd say submarines and aircraft carriers do still make a difference in the South China Sea (or any potential conflict with the PRC), and the US are bound by treaty to defend the Philippines and Japan.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Unless we start having Mexican sectarian unrest in the southwest, the US has the resiliency of Russia + the global reach of Old Britain. If we're in decline, it's a very very long arc for the US in the imperial-like sense. In terms of the republic, I think that we're in a dangerous time. But we've been there before and came out ok.

by jwdunne 11y ago

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.

mseebach 11y ago

America is nothing if not a maritime empire. But I think there's a very substantial difference between empires past and the american one: Cheap, ubiquitous, high speed communications and ditto + safe travel. Managing far-flung territories in the British and Spanish empires caused major, major friction, in a way that just isn't the case in the present day. Back then, colonial service was a life career, and you'd spend years at a time deployed overseas. Letters took weeks to turn around. Today, if you need the help of a specialist, you pick up the phone, or you could even easily fly one out and he'll be there tomorrow or the day after, and he'll be back home a few days later still.

XorNot 11y ago
Pretending a maritime empire is relevant in an age of ICBMs and jet travel is just foolish. All these "lessons from history" always fail to take into account the serious, radical differences in technological capability.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  You can't project power with ICBMs like you can with an aircraft carrier. A lot of American might is still inextricably linked with maritime power, purely because of those aircraft carriers and the support fleet that accompanies it.
- gurkendoktor 11y ago
  I'd say submarines and aircraft carriers do still make a difference in the South China Sea (or any potential conflict with the PRC), and the US are bound by treaty to defend the Philippines and Japan.
Spooky23 11y ago
Unless we start having Mexican sectarian unrest in the southwest, the US has the resiliency of Russia + the global reach of Old Britain. If we're in decline, it's a very very long arc for the US in the imperial-like sense. In terms of the republic, I think that we're in a dangerous time. But we've been there before and came out ok.