Talk:Empire

Template:Vital article

Requires Way More Content Besides European Empires

Needs information covering the Dozens of Muslim empires that have existed; there needs to be discussion of Mesoamerican empires such as the Inca and Aztec; there should be information on sub-Saharan African empires -- there were dozens of pre-European African empires (Asante Union, Oyo Empire, Ethiopian Empire, etc.). Mongol Empire should be discussed more... OttawaAC (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The basics of an Empire.

What challenges are specific to an empire?

What systems are necessary for establishing and running an empire?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of an empire?

What does it take to have a successful empire?

What makes an empire different than a kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.170.246 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, again, what makes an empire "global"? Just the fact that it crosses the Atlantic? Needs more to define what a "region" is. 132.170.85.29 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Map - World Empires 1900

These are nation-states that may or may not be considered an empire. For one example, by 1900 Portugal was no longer described as an empire. The map title might be something like Major Nation-States and Empires 1900. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.199.141 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DOes hegemony necesarily impy coercion?

" a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals)" Is this an accurate description of hegemonic power? I would have thought that hegemony could be achieved not by coercion (and sepcifically, threat of force), but by simply being able to offer something (wealth, protection, culture, etc) that the subject states wanted. I don't want to get into an argument about whether the US is a hegemonic empire, but if it was, then a lot of its power and influence would either be non-coercive (being the power you run to if you wanted protection from the Soviets) or actual (rather than percieved) use of force.Iapetus (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_world

• Roman Kingdom (753 BC -- 509 BC).
• Roman Republic (509 BC -- 27 BC).
• Roman Empire (27 BC -- 395 AD).
• Western Roman Empire (395 AD -- 476 AD).
• Eastern Roman Empire (395 AD -- 610 AD).

By 610, the Eastern Roman Empire had come under definite Greek influence, and could be considered to have become what many modern historians now call the Byzantine Empire; however, the Empire was never called thus by its inhabitants, who used terms such as Romania, Basileia Romaion or Pragmata Romaion, meaning "Land of the Romans", "Kingdom of the Romans", and who still saw themselves as Romans, and their state as the rightful successor to the ancient empire of Rome.

• Byzantine Empire (610 -- 1204 / 1261 -- 1453).
• Empire of Nicaea (1204 -- 1261).
• Despotate of Epirus (1204 -- 1337).
• Empire of Trebizond (1204 -- 1461).
• Despotate of the Morea (1308 -- 1460).

If the traditional date for the founding of Rome is accepted as fact, the Roman state can be said to have lasted in some form from 753 BC to the fall in 1475 of the Principality of Theodoro (a successor state and fragment of the Byzantine Empire which escaped conquest by the Ottomans in 1453), for a total of 2,236 years.

"The Roman Empire's timeline listed below is only up to the timeline of the Western part."

Because the empire was divided ? --2.33.180.5 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do Empires need an Emperor per se?

I think there should be a part on this article to explain this. The French Empire was a monarchy under Emperor Napoleon but the later French Colonial Empires had a republican structure with a president. In fact on the Colonial empire article, I think France is the ONLY republic on there. I know USA has some controversy of is status as an empire but, like France, it is a republic, so it is sort of another example, I would also mention the USSR and China being empires, though they aren't monarchies they are still dictatorships. The reason why the USA and France are empires without emperors is probably because France has been a major player in world politics since the last millennium and USA has rose to great prominence last century, becoming stronger than Great Britain and France.--88.104.111.184 (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

France was not a monarchy under anyone named Napoleon (take your pick). A proper monarchy differs from an empire in that the crown does not have absolute power; he/she shares it with the nobility. Following the rise of absolutism (late Middle Ages/ early modernity), those rulers are properly called emperors/empresses regardless of whether or not they call themselves king/queen. The US is not an empire (regardless of hegemonic status) because power is shared between an elected president and a bicameral legislature. Some opponents of the US try to stick that 'empire' label on to criticize US foreign policy, but the form of government is based on the domestic power relationships. The term 'Imperial Presidency' is one of these labels used for political commentary. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when has "monarchy" meant the soverign is not absolute? Since when has "empire/emperor" meant the sovereign iss absolute? By that reasoning, the Roman Empire wasn't an empire much of the time. Iapetus (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when? About AD 1535. Absolutism is essentially a dictatorship. How could you have something other than an emperor/empress leading a political entity called an empire? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm still not sure of the source of the claim that "monarchy" means "not an absolute ruler" (what about Absolute monarchy?) and "empire" means "Absolute ruler". (Indeed, "absolute ruler" was I think the original definition of "monarch", and there have been plenty of emperors and empresses who have had to share power with nobles and/or parliament,e.g. those of Britain and Japan).

Anyway, to address the other points: originally "empire" meant "monarchy whose sovereign used the title "Emperor", and originally this specifically meant Rome. Emperor (or Imperator) was the title of the Roman rule, and after the fall of Rome, various other rulers and conquerors started using that title (or varients of) as a way of saying that they were the real (or the new) Romans. But later, people started using the term "Empire" and "Emperor" for other states (E.g. China, Japan, Persia) that didn't call themselves "Empires" or have a ruler titled "Emperor" except in translation. And as soon as that happens, then "Empire" ceases to mean "monarchy ruled by a soverign who's title harks back to Rome" and becomes "state that we think is sufficiently similar to those traditionally called empires that we think it should also be called an empire". The term then expanded (uncontroversialy) and to cover other states (like the European colonial powers) that weren't particularly Rome-like in structure but did a lot of conquering and colonizing other countries, and has most recently been expanded (more uncontroversialy) to cover non-monarchial states that either directly control a lot of unwilling territories, or have hegemony over technically indepenent states).

Finally, I will also point out, that if "empire" can only mean "state with a head called Emperor" then Britain didn't have an empire until Queen Victoria took the title "Empress of India" (and if we want to be really picky you could argue that there never was a "British Empire", just a British Kingdom that included the Empire of India); Rome stopped being an empire when its rulers were using the title "Augustus" or "Caesar" instead of Imperator, and Japan still is an empire.

So to get back to the original question/suggestion (and avoid turning this into a general discussion of the subject): I agree (although not necessarily with all the examples). There needs to be a distinction made and discussion on the two main meanings of "empire", namely (1) a monarchy whose sovereign uses the title "Emperor" (or one with a shared etymology), and (2) a state whose dominance has spread over other territories in such a way that people (or rather, reliable sources) consider it best described as an empire. Iapetus (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wardog: I, too, apologize for my late reply. My watchlist is too long and I must've missed your reply. You said if "empire" can only mean "state with a head called Emperor" then Britain didn't have an empire until Queen Victoria took the title "Empress of India" (and if we want to be really picky you could argue that there never was a "British Empire", just a British Kingdom that included the Empire of India. Exactly my point.

I also agree that this article needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the term empire is thrown around pretty lightly and it has been applied to lots of political and economic situations. I don't have any good sources immediately at hand but I can start looking. I'll post here when I find something; please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I have been editing this article for punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Here is a link to a sandbox with somepotential changes made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sue91/sandbox/empire.