Empire

:''For alternative meanings, see Empire (disambiguation)'' ---- An empire (also known technically, abstractly or disparagingly as an imperium, and with powers known among Romans as "imperium") comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client monarch in the name of an emperor. By extension, one could classify as an empire any large, multi-ethnic state ruled from a single center. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion. Land-based empires (such as Russia or Achaemenid dynasty Iran) tend to extend in a contiguous area; sea-borne empires, also known as ''thalassocracy '' (the Athenian empire and British Empire empires provide examples), may feature looser structures and more scattered territories. Compare the concept of "empire" with that of a federation, where a large, multi-ethnic state — or even an ethnically homogeneous one like Australia or a small area like Switzerland — relies on mutual agreement amongst its component political units. Also, one can compare physical empires with potentially more abstract or less formally structured ''hegemony ,'' which add cultural influences to their power repertory within their sphere of influence , and also compare empires with superpowers. [[Image:Austria hungary 1911.jpg|thumb|right|370px|Ethnicities within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, from William R. Shepherd, ''Historical Atlas'', 1911: compare Nation state]] == Empires throughout history == The modern term "empire" derives from the Latin ''imperium'', a word coined in what became possibly the most famous example of this sort of political structure, the Roman Empire founded in 31 BC. For many centuries, the term "Empire" in the West applied exclusively to states which considered themselves to be successors to the Roman Empire, such as the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or, later, the Russian Empire ruled from the "Third Rome" (Moscow). Over time, other monarchies which viewed themselves as greater in size and power than mere kingdoms used the name or its translation. In 1056, king Ferdinand I of Leon, king also of Castile (peripheral principalities in Europe at the time) proclaimed himself "Emperor of Spain," beginning the ''Reconquista''. Bulgaria furnishes another example). Europeans came to apply the term "empire" to large non-European monarchies, such as the Empire of China or the Moghul Empire, and to extend it to past polities. The word eventually came to apply loosely to any entity meeting the criteria, whether kings governed or not, even whether a monarchy or not. In some cases synonyms of ''empire'' such as ''tsardom'', ''realm'' or ''reich'' occur. The actual political concept predates the Romans by several hundred years: empires began to appear soon after the first cities made the necessary administrative structures possible. The Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad furnishes one of the earliest known examples. Empires can accrete around different types of state. They have traditionally originated as powerful monarchy under the leadership of a hereditary (or in some cases, self-appointed) emperor, but the so-called empires of Athens, Britain and the United States of America developed under democracy auspices. Brazil leapt from colonial to self-declared empire status in 1822. France has twice made the transition from republic to empire. Historically, most empires came into being as the result of a militarily strong state conquering other states and incorporating them into a larger political union. Typically, a monarchy or an oligarchy rooted in the original core territory would continue to dominate this union. Many ancient empires maintained control of their subject peoples by controlling the supply of a vital resource, usually water; historians refer to such r�gimes as "hydraulic empires". The introduction of a common religion also often strengthened empires, as occurred (''pace'' Edward Gibbon) with the adoption of Christianity under Constantine I of the Roman Empire. And cultural influence played a large part in the survival of the Chinese empire and of its semi-imperial sphere of influence. An empire can mutate into some other form of polity. Thus the Bernese empire of conquest no longer appears so imperial, but its territories have become absorbed into the canton of Bern or become cantons or parts of cantons elsewhere in the Switzerland . The Holy Roman Empire, itself in a sense a re-constitution of the Roman Empire, underwent many transformations in its long history, fissuring extensively, experimenting with federalism and re-constituting itself as the Austrian Empire - vastly different in nature and in territory. The former second British Empire has spawned a loose multi-national Commonwealth of Nations, and the old French colonial empire has also left traces of its existence in cultural networks and associations. The Soviet Empire leaves behind it the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). An Emperor-based empire can readily become (say) a republic by means of a coup (Brazil, 1889; Central African Empire, 1979); or it can become a republic with its dominions reduced to a core territory (Germany (1918 - 1919), Ottoman Empire (1918 - 1923)). The breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918 provides an example of a multi-ethnic superstate fissuring into multiple constituent or new parts: the republics, kingdoms or provinces of Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czechoslovakia, Ruthenia, Galicia (Central Europe)... The world's largest contiguous land empire was the Mongol Empire (the British Empire being the largest overall), created by Genghis Khan in 1206. It encompassed huge portion of Eurasia under Mongol rule. The Mongol Empire was governed by specific written code by Genghis Khan called Yasa. The Mongol Empire was governed by kurultai, and there was freedom of religion, tax exemption and extensive trade routes that were nurtured by the Khan. For example, the Mongol Empire provided political stability to the Silk Road. == Imperialism == The discovery of the New World provided an opportunity for many European states to embark upon programs of imperialism on a different model, colony. Under this model (previously trialled in the Old World in the Canary Islands and in Ireland), subject states became ''de jure'' subordinate to the imperial state, rather than ''de facto'' as in earlier empires. This led to a good deal of resentment in the client states, and therefore probably to the demise of this system by the early- to mid-twentieth century. The heyday of imperialism, the 19th century, co-incided with a boom in the setting up of empires: from Haiti, France and Austria through Mexico to India and Germany. In contrast, the 20th century saw many empires demolished or dismembered: for example those of Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, France, Britain and the Central African Empire. One might describe one problem with the European imperial model as gerrymandering. In the interest of expediency, an imperial power tended to carve out a client state based solely on convenience of geography, while ignoring extreme cultural differences in the resulting area. An example of the attendant problems occurred in the Indian sub-continent. Formerly part of the British Empire, when the sub-continent gained its independence it split along cultural/religious lines producing modern India and the two-part country of Pakistan, which later split yet again resulting in the independence of Bangladesh. == Overt ideologies of empire == Naked aggression and sadistic greed, no more than theoretical imperialism, provide little in the way of comforting justifications for the growth and continuation of empires. Geopolitics strategy does not always arouse popular enthusiasm. But more high-minded goals can help in building imperialistic solidarity, perceived in terms such as: * Culture superiority * Exportation of revolution (violence) away from the homeland * Nationalism self-determination * racism * Spreading the benefits of civilisation == Modern "empires" == The concept of "empire" in the modern world, while still present politically, has begun to lose cohesion semantically. The only remaining country nominally ruled by an Emperor, Japan, comprises a constitutional monarchy with a population of approximately 99% ethnic Japanese. Just as monarchy (as opposed to constitutional monarchies) have largely fallen out of favour in modern times, the term "empire" itself may now become somewhat of an anachronism. The former Soviet Union had many of the criteria of an empire, but nevertheless did not claim to be one, nor was it ruled by a traditional hereditary "emperor" (see Soviet Empire). Nevertheless, historians still occasionally classify it as an empire, if only because of its similarities to empires of the past and its sway over a large multi-ethnic bloc of Eurasia. Most modern multi-ethnic states see themselves as voluntary federations (Switzerland, for example, or Belgium) or as unions (United Kingdom, Spain), and not as empires. Most have democratic structures, and operate under systems which share power (sociology) through multiple levels of government that differentiate between areas of federal and provincial/state jurisdiction. Where separatist groups exist, internal and external observers may disagree on whether state action against them represents legitimate law enforcement against a violent or non-violent fringe group, or state violence to control a broadly unwilling population. A list of multi-ethnic states with ongoing violence by and against separatists might swamp this article, although China, Russia, Indonesia and India distinguish themselves by sheer size. The United States, widely categorized as a federation, offers another example. The North used coercion to keep the Union together during the American Civil War, which made this characterization more ambiguous in the minds of many. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the United States has emerged as an unrivaled superpower, and although the country has not engaged in formal territorial expansion since the acquisitions of Hawaii, of the Philippines and of the U.S. Virgin Islands , many suggest its powerful military and economic influences allow it to exert a sort of informal New Imperialism hegemony on much of the modern world (see American Empire, corporate colonialism). == Historical empires (with approximate dates) == * Axis Powers (1936 - 1945) **Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (1940 - 1945) **Third Reich (1933 - 1945) * History of Ethiopia ( - 1974) * Achaemenid Empire (commonly known as the Persian Empire) (c. 550 - 330 BC) * Akkadian Empire (c. 2350 - 2150 BC) * American Empire * Arabian Empire (''circa'' 630 - 1258) * Assyrian Empire (c. 900 - 612 BC) * Athenian empire * Austria-Hungary (1867-1918) * Austrian Empire (1804-1867) * Aztec (1375 - 1521) * Brazilian Empire (1822 - 1889) * British Empire (''circa'' 1583 - )''De jure''* **British Raj (1858 - 1947) (Imperial: 1877 - 1947) * Byzantine Empire (395 - 1453) * Central African Empire (1977 - 1979) * History of China (221 BC - 1912) * Danish colonial empire * Dutch colonial empire * Egyptian Empire (1550-1070 BC) * Elamite Empire * French Empire **First French Empire (1804 - 1815) **Second French Empire (1853 - 1871) **French colonial empire (''circa'' 1605 -1960s ) * German Empire (1871 - 1918) **German colonial empire (1884 - 1918) * Ghana Empire * Ghaznavid Empire * Golden Horde (1378 A.D. - 1502 A.D.) * Gupta Empire * History of Haiti (1804 - 1806) * Hittite Empire (c. 1460 - 1180 BC) * Holy Roman Empire (843 – 1806) * Tahuantinsuyu (1438 - 1533) * Italian Colonial Empire * Ilkhanate (c. 1256 A.D. - 1338 A.D.) * Japanese Empire * Khmer Empire (802 - 1462) * Kongo * Korean Empire (1897 - 1910) * Macedonian Empire (''circa'' 338 B.C. - 309 B.C.) * Magadhan Empire * Majapahit Empire * Mali Empire * Malinke Empire * Maratha Empire (1674 - 1761) * Mauryan Empire * Mexican Empire (1822 - 1823, 1864 - 1867) * Mogul Empire (1526 - 1857) * Mongol Empire (1206 A.D. - 1294 A.D.) * Old Babylonian Empire (c. 1900 - 1600 BC) * Ottoman Empire (1281 - 1923) * Persian Empire * Portuguese Empire (1495 - 1975) * Roman Empire (27 BC –AD 476) * Imperial Russia ( - 1917) * Sassanian Empire (224 - 651) * Serbian Empire (1345-1371) * Seleucid Empire (323 BC - 60 BC) * Seljuk Empire (c.1037 A.D. - 1194 A.D.) * Songhai Empire * Spanish Empire (1492 - 1975) * Swedish Empire (1561 - 1878) * Teotihuacan * Timurid Empire (1401 - 1505) * Ur III Empire (c. 2100 - 2000 BC) * Republic of Venice * History of Vietnam ( - 1945) * Vijayanagara Empire (c. 1350 - 1700) ''*'' ''De facto'', The British Empire ended in the 1960's == See also == *List of extinct countries, empires, etc. *Trade bloc *Empire, California == External links == *[http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/FerdinandCastille.CP.html Ferdinand of Castile proclaims himself emperor] Forms of government lv:Impērija

Empire

This seems a very broad definition. I can't think of many political entities that weren't/aren't empires under this rule? Call a spade a spade. This is crap. NPOV is entirely lacking here. I'll work on it tomorrow if nobody else does. User:Hephaestos ---- There are aspects of this article which pose some interesting problems, which probably give rise to a sense of POV. Coercion and multi-ethnicity, whilst being perfectly reasonable attributions of historical empires (past and present) constrain the use of the term, such that there is a confusion about what constitutes an 'essential feature' of an empire. An empire would not be an empire if it did not have 'subject states', although there are examples of 'single state empires', such as the former 'Central African Empire' (which became the Central African Republic) and Abyssinia (which had an Emperor, Haile Selassie) and it becomes an issue as to whether the 'subject states' are or have ever been recognised as independent sovereign bodies, such that self-proclaimed 'empiredom' determines the nature of the state in question. Almost all current recognised sovereign states consist of a collection of subordinate 'non-sovereign' geographical entities (towns, cities, regions and provinces, some of which are sometimes even called 'states', as in the USA) and the relationship between the sovereign state and its constituent subordinate geographic components and subdivisions can be claimed to be 'imperialist' if one of the subordinate entities seeks independence and meets with resistance from the sovereign state body, or even where a sovereign state redesignates a subordinate entity as having either some form of autonomy or some kind of title befitting a sovereign state (such as 'principality' or 'republic') but without actually allowing or encouraging sovereign independence to be sought or granted (such redesignation therefore merely having been enacted for the sole purpose of aggrandizing the perception of the sovereign state or appeasing the ambitions of the subordinate, such that it would be seen to be made up of actual countries, rather than mere regions, and thus be an empire, ruled by emperors, rather than merely a nation, ruled by kings). It is conceivable that an empire could be less coercive that a particular non-imperial state, but the issue of coercion would not necessarily have a bearing on whether or not the states in question referred to themselves as, or were deemed by anyone else to be empires. Similarly, the ethnicity of the empire or subject states, whether it be uniform or diverse, would not be decisive in determining imperial status. There is a supposedly defining feature of empires (no less problematic) which constitutes a 'policy of conquest'. This tends to manifest itself as 'territorial aggrandisement' which essentially constitutes 'extending the boundaries of the state'. But states which indulge in such initiatives are not necessarily bound to call themselves, nor behave like empires. There are historical precedents for situations where, left with the option for self determination, a formerly subordinate ('colonial') state opts democratically for continued subordination within the sovereignity of the former colonial power. Thus modern day empires can present the complexities of no longer calling themselves empires, yet posessing colonies, some of which treat the arrangement with the mututal consent of a federation, yet there are other colonies of the same former empire seeking and being granted release from colonial status and yet other subsidiary proto-states pursuing and not necessarily being granted autonomy. Empires, despite appearing to be obsolete remnants of a bygone age of deference to historical authority enforced by invasion, occupation and enslavement, are in fact an extremely diverse set of manifestations of government, governance and governed, no less differentiated in their construction than any other. As a test of the meaning of the word, to what extent is the UN not an imperial power? Ericross ----- I would agree with Hephaestos and Ericross: this does not read as NPOV. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that an Empire is something which calls itself an Empire, and that they can be structured in so many different ways that generalisations are difficult. I would have thought it probably involved a sovereign or sovereign power, with the power/right/ability to impose some or all decisions in different parts of the empire. I would expect it to be multi-national (rather than multi-ethnic) and that there would be a degree of local government (whether by a centrally appointed governor or by some form of self-rule), in contrast to a unified nation state. A better article would then highlight typical features of empires (possibly with examples) and then show examples which showed this was not universal. --User:Henrygb 19:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- IMHO distinction should be made between two different meanings of the word ''empire'': - a multiethnic coercive state, whether it claims to be one or not (eg Soviet Union), - a country whose leader holds an imperial title (eg Japanese Empire). I think splitting this article in two would be a good idea. One which would explain the socio-political definition of an ''empire'' and link to the article on imperialism; and the other one which would show how some rulers (notably in Europe) adopted the imperial titles (Empereur, Kaiser, Tsar, etc) to create historical associations with the ancient Roman Empire. User:Kpalion 01:32, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- The term empire, when examined objectively, is quite helpful in exposing the perhaps surprisingly counter-intuitively arbitrary and contingent nature of the designation of 'categories' of sovereign geographic entities. At first the coercion/non-coercion criterion seems to be decisive. But what about the 'currency/recency' of coercion? If a state was coerced into becoming part of another state thousands of years ago and no longer harbours any resentment nor sustains any seperatist ambitions, does the current ruling sovereign state nontheless 'inherit' the 'criminal imperialist mantle', despite inveriably granting full autonomy or independence to all those colonies or conquests who seek it? Here's an even more troublesome to the notion of empire. Almost all sovereign states (with the exception of phenomena like the Vatican State) are comprised of a hierarchy of villages, towns, cities and provinces. To what extent are these elements NOT constituent parts of an empire? If one were to posit aspects of scale as a criterion of imperial status, such as geographic size or population, these prove to be unhelpful, as some of the world's largest cities have much larger populations than many sovereign states. Which sovereign entities can claim that none of their current roster of place names and subordinate geographic or jurisdictional elements were ever frustrated in their attempts at preserving their autonomy at any time throughout history? Ericross :: IMO many your worries are because you possibly have a pre-defined connotation with the word "empire". ''Per se'', the term doesn't bear 'criminal imperialist mantle'. The article laready distinguishes three types of empire: "classical" empire, colonial empire, and infromal meaning. What is missing, is the notion of metropoly, i.e., the center of the empire and the source of the coercion, which replaced the role of emperor in more recent empires. If it were in in goood circulation, as a noun derived from metropolitan (politics) (in the meaning ''relating to, or constituting the home territory of an imperial or colonial state'') (or is it?), it could have been used in the definition of the Empire, and it would not have required the reservation made in the definition: ''"..., though note the American civil war".'' And the article could have honestly said: yes, federation is also based on the coersion, but the coercion is mutual, rather than centralized. User:Mikkalai 00:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Flaws in the list == This list is need of some serious work....maybe the dates should not be included and it just be the names. For example, the mongol empire is down as 1206 - 1405, i assume the latter date is a reference to the death of Timur. How can this be the end date for the mongol empire. Timur was not a mongol, but a turk who was able to take advantage of the chaos in the mongol successor states (white and blue horde/chagatai khanate and il-khanate) to create his own empire. A more accurate date would be 1294 when Khubilai Khan died and the other mongol states went their seperate ways. I notice that the mongol Golden Horde is there but the Il-khanate or the Chagatai Khanate are not. How can one mongol successor state be there but not the others? all were based on force and extracted tribute from weaker states (the Il-kkans and the Seljuks of Rum for example) These discrepancies are also present in the successor states of Alexander the Great. For some reason the Seleucids deserve to be called an empire but the Ptolemies do not. Both claimed the title king, both were multi-national kingdoms built upon the ruins of Alexanders conquests (remember the ptolemies occupied palestine, cyrene and parts of southern asia minor at various times). And surely the Macedonian empire should have ended in 323BCE on Alexanders death or maybe at some point during the diadochi wars (perhaps after the battle of ipsus when all hopes of holding the empire together were crushed) rather than with the Roman conquest. The Antigonid kingdom was a much smaller enitity ruled by a different dynasty. If the Antigonids are included in a Macedonian 'empire' surely Alexander's predecessors should be also given that they ruled parts of Thrace and some greek city states. I would go about it myself but i don't fully understand the process of re-working something on such a scale. Pathetic, i know. And yes, maybe i should learn. User:SRP 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Concentrate on the ''concept'' of Empire. Leave the list to the listers, says User:Wetman 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Still, some of the dates for the empires are inaccurate and misleading. User:SRP 18:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Homogenic Australia? == Can Australia be considered an "ethnically homogeneous" nation? What about the hundreds of thousands of native tribes and their descendents? In my opinion, another example of country should be given in this article. == Sumer == What, no Sumerian Empire? User:JDG 23:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

E