Jump to content

Talk:Empire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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. -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. --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. 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 (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. Mikkalai 00:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[43 for Britain]

Ok i support and love the British empire and its might but 43 who came with that Number. werent the romans here at that rime?


New empires to be added to the list

  • Neo-Babylonian Empire
  • Athenian Empire
  • Carthaginain Empire

I can't believe they have been ignored!

I'll do Carthage now. 58.165.170.180

Another: *Kushite Empire

Maurya Empire => Very big and ancient empire of India

Global empire

I'm pleased to see the #REDIRECT. Nice to get rid of that article: Global empire. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a contention with the phrase "global empire". What does that mean? An empire spanning more than one continent? Could the Roman Empire be a global empire, since it held territories in both Eurasia and Africa? Umma Kynes 00:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

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. SRP 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concentrate on the concept of Empire. Leave the list to the listers, says Wetman 22:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still, some of the dates for the empires are inaccurate and misleading. 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? JDG 23:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empires

Whats the difference between a kingdom and an empire? I think the difference is that kingdoms conquere land.

Kings rule kingdoms just as dukes rule duchies. Emperors rule kings. --Wetman 5 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

The Graphic at the End

Wow! Since when the Ottoman Empire is an European empire? It didn't have European culture. It did not start in Europe. It never had most of its territory only in Europe (as far as I remember). Even the official language was not Indo-European!

In the same way you could say that the Persian and Mongol Empires were European! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.84.84 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Last Paragraph

All I can say is ... give me a break.

Its a great example as to why less and less people take wikipedia seriously. "arguably at times lip service" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.203.156 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Fictional Empires

Could we have a list of fictional empires from books, films, shows, etc?

-G

Please not on this page. A link to it is fine. Sluggoster (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Really Empires?

I don't know if the following states should be considered empires.

What about the Nabataean Empire?---it may prove interesting for Pre-Islamic history and its relation to the downfall of Roman empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter888 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC) this is difficult because in my geography book there are different things ahhh!! I DONT NO WAT 2 BELIVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.198.150 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okinawa used to be an empire, too.Eregli bob (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

American Empire

The U.S. is a empire today?

Bull****. Sure, it did stuff like a empire, and maybe was one.

Its not ruled by an emperor. Every state invades. Its got no colonies. What kind of an empire would that be then? The US is also a democracy and doesn't force beliefs of Religion or Culture like the Arab empire, or any empire tried.


Does not force beliefs of religion and culture? (no idea why YOU, Mr. O'reilly, used big letters) Get fucking real.

Heck yes. It has diverse territories and peoples under one rule, You've got Celtic, Teutonic, Nordic, Latin(as in Italian, French, Spanish, etc.), Slavic, Hispanic, African, Amerindian, Arabic, all under one banner. It has "colonies" like Wrangel Island, Pacific Archipelagos. Liberia could be considered a colony of Americans not under U.S. rule. It just isn't a city-state empire. Also, Empires don't have to force beleifs or anything. The Aztecs were pretty liberal imperials. They let conquests keep religion, culture, even leaders sometimes. The Alexandrian Empire neither. YOu could consider Palau, Micronesia, and American Samoa tributaries or conquests. The Philippines were once a U.S. conquest. The Amerindians were conquered, The Spaniards in The Southwest were conquered. And about being a democracy, *laughs hysterically*, that's what they want you to think.--Whytecypress 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)



Great, none of that has anything to do with being an Empire, but good for you for giving it some... well I would say "thought" but thats clearly not the case. pookster11 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If Not an empire..Then it is an "EVIL Empire"Ferju 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

THE USA IS not an empire. Sure, we try to force democracy. But that doesn't mean we are an empire. We vote for the people that represent us. (if you don't vote, you can't complain) Sure, we invade other countries, but we don't make them join us. The USA may not be the best country, but it is surely not an empire.


Everything you discussed above every nation has done. WHy single out the United states to call it an EMpire? PLease find me an example of a country that hasnt done these things!! Fill teh list or empty the list of america. Mrdthree 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To Rudyard Kipling.

Democracy can not be forced, but embraced , and do not give me this “White Man's Burden fallacy “ to justify the Americans' crimes all over the world.

And a Question.. by saing { We vote for the people that represent us.}

Do you mean that Americans "democratically elect" their leaders (war criminals) to power to do these crimes? ...are Americans as people responsible too?.

Ferju 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is America calleda democracy---it's supposed to be a REPUBLIC!

We should just reorganize our Republic into an actual American Empire, then destroy a few nations - just to make people understand what an empire really is. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is stupid the USA isnt an empire never was never will be, the USA is a republic so there for a democracy as it has a voted goverment, if the USA went around destroying a few nations its world likeing would go down a few trillion miles further and it would be at WW3 and would so badly lose because it would be alone, invading doent make an empire the USA spreads democracy and is suppost to be spreading peace not invading countrys for power what ever you may think, any way it has no relevance as it never was and never will be, so shut the fuck up and stop trying to write history its people like you who make people dislike the USA, as wikipeia isn't for propaganda you should not be using it. Alexsau1991 (talk) 17:59, 1st March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, Ferju, pretty much every country, land, region, nation, culture and group of people in the world has done some or all of those things at one point or another. It's nothing new. Stop humping 1984. And the U.S. has no official religion or language to force on people. You don't hear about people "fleeing for their lives" from the "Evil and Tyrannical American Empire." In fact, you see just the opposite. People flock to this country. People from all over want to live here, and if you don't believe me, look at the high immigration rates. It's hard to be an imposing, evil empire when people love coming here and the average person can enjoy life as it is. Oh, and let's not forget that the U.S. is the most diverse country in the world, with every group numbering in the millions. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Black Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What a senseless discussion. Empire is JUST defined by "a state ruled by a moncharch" Colonialism and expansionism play no role. An Empire can even be a democracy, Great Britain until the 1960s for example. unsigned

  • I agree that 'a state ruled by a moncharch' but before the murge of the English and Scotish trone england wasnt classed as an empire. i agree that a country with no sort of monach is an empire like the USA for eg. so it should be removed.


It's absolute bull, we never had a empire and it is considered a insult to say we did. The definition of Empire according to Webster is;

1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, french Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire. 2. a government under an emperor or empress. 3. ( often initial capital letter ) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire. 4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe. 5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind. 6. a powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope that is controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates: The family's shipping empire was founded 50 years ago. 7. ( initial capital letter ) a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh. It fits none of the definitions, and is therefore a non-issue. It should be removed immediately as it is already in violation of Wikis stance on neutrality.

I've taken out obvious troll statements as well.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

A TIMELINE, dammit

I think there done oughter be a timeline of Empires. We can start by timelisting the below list:

Historical empires (with approximate dates)
Early empires
First millennium CE
Early Second millenium CE
Late 2nd millenum CE
20th

* The United Kingdom still has many overseas territories, and also the commonwealth realms are considered to be completely self governing colonies as they recognise the British monarch as their head of state.

** De facto, The British Empire ended in the 1960s

Why does an empire have to exist as a "multi-etnic state"? A large collection of similiar states might still be an empire, might it not? Avalon 11:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

THIRD REICH

Why isnt the third reich considered an empire? Mrdthree 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the third reich does fit the deffention of an Empire. It did invade and control countries.--Scott3 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they conqured a lot of land, and sure acted like an empire Seldon1 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


The word "Reich" means empire. So it considered itself one. Sluggoster (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, "reich" means realm or nation. Consider "Königreich". Taemyr (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

the Third Reich was intended to be an empire as Hitler invaded as 'Furher' them and singly controled the. Alexsau1991 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

I added the cleanup tag because this article is disorganized and could use wikification. see my edit as of 20:29 11/28/05 to see what I mean by reorganizing. --Phil 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Evil Empire

Perhaps including something along the lines of "Although Ronald Reagan once referred to the Soviet Union as the 'Evil Empire', it is, in fact, not an empire, and he was just being the alliterate phrase-spewing anthropomorphic raisin he is known as today".

Very funny. Ha. Ha. Please read WP:NOT. Walton monarchist89 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The later post only supports the former posts suggestion. Go for it.

-G

It was an empire. It had imperial domain over the Soviet Republics as well as Eastern Europe. Sluggoster (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Empire

It is tough to define exactly what is meant by "Empire", although what is present on this page seems sufficient. The problem is that a timeline of Empires cannot be completely objective under these circumstances. I offer the example of the inclusion of "American Empire", which is definately a debateable point (i.e. yes the states do have an enormous range of influence, but does that really mean they are an "empire"?).

It's a very disambiguations term,
firstly an empire can have a metroploe and land overseas which is clearly the kind of empire many imagine looking at European colonial powers. this gets very confusing when one looks at land based sprawling empires like Russia/USSR, austor-Hungarian, etc - can these be compared with the previous category?
secondly do we really suppose that "empire" is based solely upon land ownership, think about informal influence (UK in Egypt, Iran, Argentina, etc) and more recently the USA.... Similarly empire is often an expression of the very vague concept of power (be it political, military, diplomatic, economic, religious, etc, etc)
IMHO it all a load of very vague notions, with no proper defining that is clear and decisive, making it very hard to compare "empire" across time and various regions. Pickle 05:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition of an empire as a state with dominion over culturally and ethnically distinct populations is as wrong as the "all swans are white" claim. An empire is a state with an emperor as its ruler. Period. Germany und Japan were/are empires with a homogeneous population. The k.u.k. Austria-Hungary or tsarist Russia were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.115.20 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So if a country retitles its head of state from President to Emperor it becomes an empire? No. "Emperor" is a title above king. The tsar (king) of Russia did not call himself "imperator" because that title was reserved for the Roman/Byzantine Emperor, a position which ceased to exist when the Turks overtook Constantinople. But Russia and the Soviet Union were/are empires regardless of the leader's title. Russia also considered itself the "third Rome", the successor to Byzantium, thus calling itself an empire. Also note the Caucasian peoples incorporated into Russia against their will, as the current disputes in and around around Chechnya, Georgia, and Armenia show. All characteristics of an empire. Sluggoster (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been puzzled by recent view of Nikola Tesla page in Wikipedia (english version) which states "Born in Smiljan, Croatian Krajina, Austrian Empire, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen." this has got me thinking on a definition of what is an empire. According to wikipedia "An empire ... is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire, and other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors...." wherein the whole article there is not one mention of the legal structure of what constitutes an empire, so far i have not seen any mention (with the exception of Japan) where an empire is a legal form of a state which according to wikipedia is a "...political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the exercise of coercive violence for the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police."". As an example taken on Croatia, Hungary within the Austrian Monarchy would therefor indicate that the Emperor of Austria would de iure exercise his power over Croatia through his title of King of Croatia and not Emperor of Austria likewise his power over Hungary is exercised as King of Hungary and again not as Emperor of Austria, this I deduct from his official title according to Wikipedia "His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty,Franz Joseph I,By the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia,..." which is true of all other austrian emperors. The fact being that although the emperors had de facto control over the named kingdoms de iure the control arises from the titles and coronation as kings of respective states (see definition). It is important in my opinion to differentiate and stress this differences as the todays states are legal successors to the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia respectively. As a conclusion i would like to propose that the empire unless stated in written or otherwise constitution as in case of Japan whereas it is an independent state, an empire in fact is a aggregation of independant states governed by a single ruler through his hold or right to legal title as a monarch of these named states. Hence i would submit that whereas a state can be defined, the term empire should only be used as a reference to a larger unity only in cases where the named unity is acting with a unified position.

89.172.32.216 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In "The War of the World" Niall Ferguson, a British historian, seems to call the US an empire because of its multiethnic makeup, without regard to its overseas possessions. This deserves a place in the article. Sluggoster (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

American Empire ???

In reference to the list of empires on this talk page, I feel it must be made clear that while America may be a de facto empire, it is not a de jure empire, and has never styled itself an empire, nor has it ever had an emperor. Although it is certainly powerful enough to be termed 'imperial', and could be described as 'multi-ethnic' because of its sovereignty over Guam, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, I think that we should restrict this article to the de jure definition of empires. (Arguably, under this definition, the British Empire was not an empire either, but Queen Victoria was styled Empress of India, and the term British Empire was in common use among British people until after WWII.) Walton monarchist89 12:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See American Empire (term). It's a debate as old as the sun. Well, not quite that old. Interestingly, the same thing was said by a Dutchman about Dutch Empire. Note that in the course of the Spanish-American War, the USA attacked and took over what was left of the Spanish Empire - Guam, Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. These were Spanish imperial possessions that then became American possessions. Did they suddenly cease to be "imperial"? There were certainly many in the US at that time that looked enviously on European empires and believed that it was time for the USA to have a piece of the cake too. There were also many that looked down on America acting like Old Europe. In the Penguin History of the United States by High Brogan (arguably a "bread and butter" history book, not controversial), "imperialism (American)" appears in the index with several entries. If American imperialism can be talked of, then one can arguably talk of an American Empire, even if the United States did not relabel itself as such, or the common folk use it in every day conversation. Gsd2000 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That couldn't have been better expressed. Indeed, the very usage is controversial among us. --Wetman 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Is manifest destiny imperial, is then acquiring Alaska and Hawaii imperial ?, certainly the acquisition of the former Spanish colonies is colonial. the more important thing, especially today is the informal empire, the non formal control over various areas. in the context of the study of the British empire we refer to places like Argentina (just a massive investor), and Iran (formal treaty over oil rights) as informal empire. thus this term can be transfered across to the US, but this highlights the problem of what on earth is empire, imperialism, et al, as no one can agree one common definition. Pickle 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
America became an Empire after the Spanish-American War in 1898. After it acquired Guam, the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico, it became an Imperial power to match those in Europe and was being recognized by those powers as a powerful country. In the Spanish-American War article it even says in the Aftermath section that America became an Imperial power. Also all Empires do not have to have emperors. Certainly the Spanish Empire did not have an Emperor/Empress, right? Lord Vader 4:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Few people other than the Chamorro, Puerto Ricans, possibly Samoans, Hawaiians, and native Americans could really care if America is an empire or not Isaac Crumm 09:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is slanted in such a way as to allow America to be put into the category of Empire. Not one ounce of rigor. More propaganda from the America hating leftists. Traitors. 68.106.248.211 03:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things can be debatable about the definition of empire and USA's inclusion as one, but I think the examples of international intrigue and undue influence are not what would make the US an empire. Nor would I even think of the American presence in the Philippines and Cuba as outright imperialism; they set up what were purported, at the time at least, to be transitional governments preparing these colonized nations for freedom. For many reasons, it is easy to criticize the reality of these regimes, but things are not as black and white as they seem in those instances. Likewise, conquering of Spanish colonial territory in the Southwest and California can hardly be viewed as expansion of empire over the Spanish. That's not how the colonial 'game' worked. However, in the oldest and most obvious sense, American domination of its many different Aboriginal nations--Cherokee, Cree, Navajo, Sioux, to name but a few--is imperial. The US, like every country of the Americas, is essentially an empire from its foundations. As has been discussed, if you think that these realities do not reflect what an empire is, then we need a clearer definition.AnthroGael 16:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who conquered the "spanish" in California ? Do you mean, Mexicans ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

~~Sovereignty over a smattering of islands, or even an archipelago in Asia (Philippines) does not an empire make.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.119.3 (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The United States is not an Empire in any form. Stop trying to rewrite history to push your antiamerican agendas. Travis Cleveland (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I have been puzzled by recent view of Nikola Tesla page in Wikipedia (english version) which states "Born in Smiljan, Croatian Krajina, Austrian Empire, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen." this has got me thinking on a definition of what is an empire. According to wikipedia "An empire ... is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire, and other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors...." wherein the whole article there is not one mention of the legal structure of what constitutes an empire, so far i have not seen any mention (with the exception of Japan) where an empire is a legal form of a state which according to wikipedia is a "...political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the exercise of coercive violence for the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police."". As an example taken on Croatia, Hungary within the Austrian Monarchy would therefor indicate that the Emperor of Austria would de iure exercise his power over Croatia through his title of King of Croatia and not Emperor of Austria likewise his power over Hungary is exercised as King of Hungary and again not as Emperor of Austria, this I deduct from his official title according to Wikipedia "His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty,Franz Joseph I,By the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia,..." which is true of all other austrian emperors. The fact being that although the emperors had de facto control over the named kingdoms de iure the control arises from the titles and coronation as kings of respective states (see definition). It is important in my opinion to differentiate and stress this differences as the todays states are legal successors to the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia respectively. As a conclusion i would like to propose that the empire unless stated in written or otherwise constitution as in case of Japan whereas it is an independent state, an empire in fact is a aggregation of independant states governed by a single ruler through his hold or right to legal title as a monarch of these named states. Hence i would submit that whereas a state can be defined, the term empire should only be used as a reference to a larger unity only in cases where the named unity is acting with a unified position.

89.172.32.216 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

Unbelievably, this article contains no central discussion of imperial systems other than European/Western empires. This is ethnocentric, culturally biased, and fundamentally incomplete. There have been empires and imperial systems for centuries before the crusades, or the European colonial empires, or the discussion of whether or not American hegemony constituthttp://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire&action=edit&section=6es empire. Without a substantial discussion of the many many empires of the past, this article remains irretrievably one-sided.—thames 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism doesn't make it sound so irretrievable; all you need do is add content on non-European empires. siafu 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If you really want to see loads of info about other empires, add it yourself. Isaac Crumm 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the POV tag as this is a misuse of it. The article does mention non-Western empires - just because the largest section happens to be on Western imperialism doesn't mean that it's POV, it just means that as Siafu says, it needs to be beefed up for non-European empires. This article is not arguing that imperialism equals Western imperialism, so it's not POV. Just incomplete. Gsd2000 21:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to my comment above - the article begins: "An empire ... comprises a set of regions locally ruled by governors, viceroys or client kings in the name of an emperor." What is POV or culturally biased about that? It goes on to say "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." This is saying exactly what you said in your criticism: "There have been empires and imperial systems for centuries before the crusades". Gsd2000 21:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It contains a handful of sentences on imperial systems other than European/Western. It has multiple long sections on European/Western/United States imperialism. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, that is precisely a violation of NPOV. The tag ought to remain until the balance is restored.—thames 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That section, which I already read before posting above, is about viewpoints. This article is not expressing competing views! Again, this article is not arguing that imperialism equals Western imperialism - that would be a viewpoint. Gsd2000 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Alternately, instead of insisting on NPOV and putting a tag in place, you could just expand the article as needed. siafu 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus is also an NPOV problem with this page. It's not NPOV by commission, it's NPOV by omission. I would love to expand the article, discussing the major imperial systems, but that takes time, and until that time, the NPOV tag serves as a warning to the reader.—thames 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you have plenty of time for berating this article here on the talk page, but not on actually improving the content. This is curious, as I was under the impression that the purpose of editting wikipedia was to spend time on improving the encyclopedia. siafu 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, you are complaining about Empires that existed before the Crusades. How can a failure to adequately mention them be cultural bias when those cultures have been non-existent for centuries?!! I really believe that you are misunderstanding what the NPOV should be used for. Gsd2000 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The more I read about NPOV the more I think it is crazy to tag this article NPOV. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." There are no conflicting views here!!! Each historical era of empire is not a "view", absolutely nowhere on this article does it espouse the view that empire equals Western empire, and a failure to have enough words on non-European empires does not equal a "biased" view let alone any view at all. This article clearly states that there were empires other than European ones. Gsd2000 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the NPOV tag again. The "expand" tags that you have added correctly address the concern that you are raising. Tagging this as NPOV is misleading in itself. Gsd2000 22:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It's POV because by omitting any substantive discussion of non-Western imperialism, this article has implicit anti-Western or Euro-centric focus. The implication is that only the West has imperialism notable enough to warrant discussion, which is clearly not the case. That's one-sided and reflects the bias of the editors up to this point.—thames 03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that non-European empires existed is mentioned already mentioned several times. There are several references to non-European empires in the first two paragraphs and in the list of empires at the end. If all editors held your opinion about NPOV, Wikipedia would be strewn with NPOV tags for factual articles that are incomplete, with one set of facts discussed more than another set. Now, if there was absolutely no mention of an empire other than European ones then I would agree that this article was biased - but it does mention it, several times, so it's not biased, just needs fleshing out with the expand tags that you put in. By labelling it NPOV you are indicating to the user that it is advocating a particular point of view - but it's patently not. Gsd2000 11:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It remains NPOV. A few trifling sentences to represent several thousand years of empires from Akkad to China to India to Africa, and then several thousand words on European empire and how American hegemony "might" be empire is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of Empire. It is NPOV by omission not commission.—thames 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

Although the phenomenon discussed is very real, and great source of turmoil to the empires/colonies, I don't think gerrymandering is the right term to describe it. Perhaps a term that means something much more arbitrary than gerrymander. It was also a big problem in the Middle East and in Africa.Isaac Crumm 09:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also thought "gerrymandering" was inappropriate when reading the article, so I took the liberty of rewording the sentence to remove the term. Equendil Talk 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

English use

Why does empire not have 'the' before it? Skinnyweed 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the name of the article ? If so it would imply the article is about one empire in particular, which it isn't, in addition, it's contrary to naming conventions on Wikipedia, see WP:NAME#General conventions Equendil Talk 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern "empires"

I removed the last paragraph of this section:

This is the usual US-bashing that characterizes Wikipedia. It should not be re-added unless the weasel words ("may be known", "many suggest") are removed or re-worded and cited. This whole paragraph is one big {{Fact}} tag.

Also the superfluous comparison of the civil war with the definition of empire needs to go - if nothing else because it clashes with the friggin' definition given at the start of the article, not to mention it's a lame attempt at a lead-in from thin air.

European Union seems to qualify for a modern empire see European Union gets its military fist, European Defense Agency, European Rapid Reaction Force.Mrdthree 13:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak argument, just because the E.U has a developing united Military Force does not make it an Empire. To be an Empire it must Dominate some other territories against their will, all the Territory of the E.U has entered into it totally voluntarily and Democratically. You might call the E.U a superpower, but it is not an Empire. Because of this I've removed the European Union from the List of Empires, again. --Hibernian 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The EU is exerting its hegemony on people in the former Yugoslavia. Mrdthree 16:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And are you going to present any evidence of this? The only thing I can think of to make sense of your claim in the E.U's peace-keeping mission in Bosnia EUFOR, and that mission is recognized by the U.N and is willingly accepted by the Bosnian Government, so to call it a "Military Hegemony" is very strange. It's not like the E.U invaded Bosnia and started dictating to them or something. So unless you can come up with a good argument (or even a source that calls the E.U and Empire) I'll be removing it again from the list. If the E.U is to be mentioned on this page there will first have to be a section explaining why it is believed that the E.U is an Empire, you cannot just blatantly put it in a list of Empires without some discussion. --Hibernian 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I am going to start collecting evidence that smaller countries consider the EU hegemonic. TO my mind a "modern empire" has three defining characteristics: it is bigger than most countries (indicates an imperialist past), has relative economic wealth (indicator of capitalist-imperialism), and attempts to use its political and economic capital to influence other nations (hegemonic policy). For example without the influence of the EU, the Ukranian government would likely collapse, perhaps other eastern european nations as well. I would guess that Russians (vis a vis Belarus), Serbians, Africans, and certain Asian nations all view the EU as a hegemonic force. Europeans themselves aspire to focus and expand European power. Many scholars and religious people consider the EU a 'potential' empire. While admittedly teh EU is not an empire 'de jure' it has well known expanisionist desires, has already rewritten the borders of other countries and formed a military. Some articles below:
    • "These days hegemony is played through the International System by supreme powers such as the United States of America, China, Russia, India and European Union."[1]
    • "AGOA was created largely in response to the growing hegemonic economic presence of the EU in Southern Africa"[2]
    • "..EU enlargement has already degenerated into the same tiresome and antiquated mercantilist game among 19th century continental Big Powers."[3]
    • "Europe's effort to bring Russia to agreement to its principles of conducting foreign relations will be interpreted as "double standards" and an attempt at achieving "regime change". " [4]
    • "End times news EU: Final World Empire" a book[5]
    • "The new approach taken by the EU can be understood within the context of the hegemonic dominance of neoliberalism within political elites." [6]
    • "EU's region-building and boundary-drawing policies: the European approach to the Southern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans "[7]
    • "The European centre exercises a hegemony over its peripheries, and it is only through full EU membership that European periphery states may become equal to the states at the European centre." [8]
    • "Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union "[9]
    • REview of above book: "Zielonka’s starting point is the fact that the ending of the Cold War, by allowing the ‘old’ EU to incorporate first a group of neutral states and then several ex-members of the Warsaw Pact (including ex-components of the Soviet Union), changed the nature of the Union.....the EU has itself transformed the countries of Central and Eastern Europe too—acting as an ‘empire’ in one sense by coercing its neighbours into adopting economic, legal and political patterns in its own image..."[10]
      • Jan Zielonka is Professor of European Politics at the Univeristy of Oxford and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow at St Antony's College.[11]
    • "Geopolitics of European Union Enlargement: The Fortress Empire "[12]
Mrdthree 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So here is my suggested passage explaining how the EU is a "modern Empire":

After its origins as a trade bloc, the Post-Cold war European Union has since issued its own currency [13], formed its own military [14], and exercised its hegemony in Eastern European Nations and abroad.[15][16][17][18]. As a consequence, political scientist, Jan Zielonka [19], has argued that the EU has transformed itself into an empire by coercing its neighbours into adopting economic, legal and political patterns in its own image [20].

Mrdthree 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Haitian Empire

I removed the "haitian empire" entry (that linked to history of Haiti) from the list of empires, while rulers named themselves "emperors" on two occasions, I don't think Haiti could qualify as an "empire" during any period of its history. Equendil Talk 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Impire date

According to this link it is debated when the roman impire rise. I'll be putting somthing the article. I'll also put both dates of the collapse of the eastern and western impire.--Scott3 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman empire began after the First Punic War with the acquisition of Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily. The Roman Empire began in 27BC with the First Settlement under Augustus. pookster11 09:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

LANGUAGES IN ROMAN EMPIRE

The Romans imposed Latin thoroughly in Western Continental Europe, but less successfully in Britain and in the East. Well, I'm graduated in History and well know that Roman Empire of East rejected Latin for Greek and was also culturally Greek, but this is the first time in my life I hear that Latinization of Britain was "less successfull". For what I know Celtic England (Scotland and Wales were outside Roman Empire) was fully latinized and became German only after the late invasions of Danes, Angles, Saxons and so on. More, I find simply absurd that British Empire (which never was an Empire, being Queen Victoria only Empress of India) is considered still existing only because Britain still has some scattered islands in the world! And no comment about "American Empire". Are we sure that this article in neutral? Val

Japan

Japan is the only state in the world without and Emperor, yet it is both said to have ended and be an example of a non-imperial state. If the Central African Empire is an empire surely modern Japan is too.

What areas does modern Japan exert imperialist control over that are not culturally Japanese? pookster11 10:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Japan's ruler being called an Emperor means very little in consideration of its being an empire or not. Still, while it is certainly less imperial than many other nations, the Ryukyuans and the Ainu are two dominated nations native to the current territories of Japan. Despite significant efforts and successes in assimilation since the late 19th century, I think it is unfair and inaccurate to dismiss these two groups as culturally Japanese. As the Ainu represent a small Hokkaido minority numbering as little as 30 000 and almost without any speakers of their native language, I can see how they often get ignored as imperialized subjects. However, the Ryukyuans form a majority in the Okinawa prefecture with a significant minority in the Kagoshima prefecture. They may not be seeking complete independence from Japan, but they represent a distinct cultural, linguistic, and territorial entity in Japan that is dominated by the Japanese majority. That is imperial.
Incidentally, the unreferenced statement that Japan is 99% ethnically Japanese is wrong. While figures are widely debatable for a number of reasons, George Hicks says there are 6 million - 4.5% - ethnic minority Japanese {George Hicks, Japan's hidden apartheid: the Korean minority and the Japanese., (Aldershot, England ; Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998), 3.} Still, I would reduce this to more like 2.25% since he includes the Burakumin in that number. In sum, something like 97.5% is a more accurate figure than 99%. AnthroGael 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If one is glancing at the Japanese Chrysanthemum throne with a perspective on the complex hierarchy of the empire of Japan; the subsequent and specific blend of symbolic power, trade/economic power and power of piety in professional and religious virtue, the perspective might change in regard of the question of whether this empire as merely anachronistic. Japan is perhaps not so much a nation state as it is an empire. The distinction between private and state is alien in this regard. One should also note that the Chrysanthemum throne has a remarkable long tradition. Also the Japanese Imperial orders, some might find an interesting study...--Xact (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Empires

The list section of this article is becoming very long; it's already longer than the entire rest of the article. It's also, IMO, the contentious part of the whole thing as editors passing by have often added or removed entries without discussion. If there are no objections to the split, I'll go ahead and do it myself tomorrow. siafu 22:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be re-written.

The definition of empire used in this article is taken much too loosely, using definitions from dictionaries. The concept of "empire" is much more complicated than simply invading a neighbouring territory. What's worse is that most of the article is written based on this loose definition (especially the ridiculous list of empires, no offense), in light of the fact that the definition is disputed, which is even stated in the intro. At least include information based on alternative definitions. --Šarukinu 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want a very direct definition...

Empire: Any collection of countries in which one parent country establishes government and its cultural beliefs and innovation.

And all those empires look fine to me. Some I've never heard of but i doubt they arent empires.

The trouble here is what is the definition of empire, i.e. a one power establishing hegemony over a number of others, and the popular conception of what an empire should be, by rights a single small city state establishing hegemony over its neighbours should be able to call itself an Empire but the popular conception is that Empires should be large powerful and monolithic.KTo288 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Core and periphery

I've substituted the traditional term metropole for the term Core countries in this article. The term "core country" as used in World-systems theory i.e. 'industrialized capitalist countries' is not the same as the term 'core' as I understand it to relate to empires i.e. a nation at the centre of an empire. The World-systems theory use seems only to date from the 80's, and there have been Empires around long before that, a lot of them not industrialised and not capitalistic.KTo288 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much to whomever deleted that god awful controversial list of empires. *hugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.69.139 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

the biggest empires?

can we create a list of the biggest empires? --İlhanli 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Chinese EMpire and Tibet

Have we discussed the modern Chinese state and its imperialist ambitions in Tibet, India, Korea, Taiwan, and border conflicts with Vietnam, Russia, and Japan. As I recall, China supports a repressive puppet state in North Korea that would not exist otherwise, unilaterally occupied North Korea, invaded Tibet. I think research into this topic is relevant to teh article.Mrdthree 16:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"The New Chinese Empire: And What it Means for the United States." Ross Terrill, Harvard UNiversity.[21]
"Hegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World".Steven W. Mosher. [22]

Mrdthree 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory to your comment China has been loosing much of its dynastic territories since the 1850s to its neighbors, including the ceding of Mongolia and portions near India. Juxtposed to the American imperialism throughout its ultra- genocidal colonial days, the later days of the 19th Century Roosevelt era, and its "unfailing" support of corrupt "decocratic" powers? Problems with this comment, North Korea went rogue right after the Korean War, India invaded Chinese territories and after the Indians lost the war, lost Dehli and its eastern provinces, China returned the territories with additional disputed territories to them (under the Mao era!). Tibet was part of the Qing dynasty, the ROC, Republic of China so in terms of claim, China has a portion of the claim, for god sakes even Taiwan has freakin' claims to Tibet AND Mongolia. How can you gun-totering assholes even not consider Japan a genocidal magalomaniac, self-attributed Arian empire during World War, how can you ignore its treatments of its northern islanders, Okinowans and its illegitamate claim to part of the Russo-Chinese(ROC) territories it annexed during WWII. Hell if our US armed forces can fully pardon the leading practitioners of the Japanese bio- torturers of Unit 731 (for their bio- info)who killed millions of Chinese, Russians, and Koreans, (not to mention white POWs) it deserves a seat in the spotlight of guilt and error. Damn the high horsed talk of "we'll ignore the oppressed Chinese people if we deal with them in business". Yeah, we Americans will give you freedom, at the expense of your independence, that's our style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.30.16 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
While most of these comments are tangential, I see five main points offereed by User:63.144.30.16: (1) China has been losing its dynastic territories since the 1850's; (2) China ceded portions of its territory to Mongolia and India; (3) North Korea is a rogue state no longer supported by China; (4) India invaded China; (5) ROC and PROC have competing claims to China, Mongolia and Tibet. Very interesting.I will try to find a source that includes your point of view. Mrdthree 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Response to claims: (1) The only difference between the Qing Empire (1600-1900) and PRC is Mongolia [23]; (2) Mongolia gained independence from the Qing dynasty not the PRC, and was a Soviet satellite until 1990, I dont know about India but PRC definitely invaded Vietnam, which was not part of the Qing Empire; (3) China is the main source of aid to North Korea; (4) China invaded India; (5) PRC 'liberated' Tibet from non-existant British forces.Mrdthree 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it's debatable, China should definitely be considered a potential modern empire (like America). Just as the Soviet Union succeeded the Russian Empire, so the PRC is built on the Manchu Empire. It's multi-ethnic and relies on force to hold itself together. Furthermore, it's embarking on international adventures that could be construed as imperialism. Wouldn't it be worth adding? Brutannica (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed SCO

I just wanted to let people know that I removed the paragraph about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The organization is a weak economic/military alliance at best (at least for now, that may change), and nowhere even close to qualifying as an empire, even by the loose definitions supplied in this article. However, if someone is seeking a replacement for the SCO, I think China by itself qualifies as an empire (if you've been out to Xinjiang lately, you'll know what I mean). China is also the major driving force behind the SCO. Cheers! Otebig 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge at Imperialism

look, why would anyone want 2 add imperialism to empire??!!Anakin908 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't make any sense. Imperialism should be kept seperate. Imperialism is related but not nearly close enough to merge the articles.--Billy 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

I have removed the following statements, as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

  • The Neo-Assyrian empire, founded by Tiglath-Pileser III in the mid-8th century BC, was the earliest example of a centrally organized, multinational empire, which was comparable to, and predated the Roman Empire by at least six centuries.
  • many point out that the introduction of Christianity and its strict orthodoxy actually created more problems in Late Antiquity than it solved

If anyone can find sources to back up these claims, feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S is an empire. it does wat it wnts and it has "territories', nother name for colonies!! they capture hawaii and only want power. Do u know how many conspiricies there are out there? One.. world trade center blown up by U.S. to go to war and stop the terrerists that the u.s supplied around 10 years back. U.S never flown on the moon. if it was, then why was the flag waving when there is no air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by You123456789 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US captured Hawaii - because American-Hawaiian sugar interests did - and it DID go to the moon (that flag was held up by wires). It is a republic, federation, empire, and superpower, as well as a democracy. What it is not: a monarchy. That was decided upon from the beginning. An empire it most assuredly is (the government has used coercion against cultures within its own boundaries on numerous occasions: the end of the American Civil War, civil rights incidents, the quelling of race riots, the sequestration of the Native Americans, the quelling of various cults; it is also a multi-ethnic country: thank you, Ellis Island and Castle Garden); and a democratic republic it also most assuredly is (we vote and we have governing councils, don't we?) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Random spew cleanup

This bit of spew made it's way here...

While many empires were extremely successful, the Alex Empire is and will always be elite. Within the Alex Empire, scum are strictly forbidden and it never rains. Thanks to many skilled Chinese physicians, the sky permanently reflects Alex's amazing visage. Alex is clearly the Empress, and second in command is Kaviss, commonly known for the abbreviation KGB - Kaviss is gonna get you bitch. If you cross Alex, your most likely fate will be a sentence to serve in the Pit Of Burning Inferno™.

I've undertaken it's removal.Cocacola4blood (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Don't you know about Maurya empire???

Read on wikipedia, not listed here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.229.242 (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition

First let me say I don't have anything personally against defining empire as a state where the people in power hold sway over a group or groups of people culturally different from them. However, I have not seen empire defined that way ANYWHERE. I've been looking through dictionaries and most simply say any state that is either big or composed of multiple nations (that could mean multi-ethnic I suppose) is an empire. I didn't even see a single reference for the article's definition of empire. This really bothers me cuz I went to a lot of trouble creating (and now defending) a page based on this definition. If someone doesn't address this, I might have to put a tag up. I'd really hate to do that cuz I know I hate it when folks tag the hell out of me for minor stuff. But this ain't minor! Scholars do debate what constitutes an empire (another definition of which is any extensive enterprise under a single authority...hell McDonald;s is an empire by that definition). Can we please talk about this and put the issue to rest. i know I can count on you all. PEACEScott Free (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

POV Edit

Removed a sentence that is biased anti-Western and obviously aimed at the U.S. and Europe. The paragraph is more neutral without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire?

What Scholars still finds the attempt to define such a loosely used term worth the bother?Dejvid (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{Dubious} tags put into the intro...

  • There are several problems with the Introduction and the definition of "empire". First, here is Oxfords definition:

empire

Noun:

1) an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority;
2) supreme political power:
3) a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group.

This conflicts with the following statements:

A strict definition would only apply the term to states that either derive or claim to derive from the Roman Empire such as the Russian Empire.

Because a country is called an empire - even from a western POV, doesn't mean that that nation states claims a connection to the Roman Empire. Russian and Byzantine claimed this because they were 'Roman' for many reasons. The Inca, Japanese, and Chinese Empires did not claim this connection with Rome, only the word was Latin.

By analogy, various states ruled by single autocrats such as the Mongol Empire which have no relation to Rome or even predate it such as the Achaemenid Empire have been termed empires.

This assumes that there is a dispute with that term for this nation state. The wording should not reflect that.

The term has, however, been applied to other quite distinct regimes namely 19th Centuary Colonial Empires (Spanish Empire) and thalassocracies (usually small city states which have managed to dominate far flung collections of islands and coastal strips such as the Athenian League).

For the same reason above.

No single definition can cover all these cases.

See Oxford's definition. It did a good job at that and we should reflect this and removed this supposed dispute. Dinkytown (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Starting at the end and working backwards:
  1. The Oxford definition is not a bad one but read it again - it is actually three definitions.
  2. "This assumes that there is a dispute with that term for this nation state". You'll have to expand that a little as for the moment I don't understand what you mean.
  3. The Inca, Japanese, and Chinese Empires clearly were not trying to imitate Rome. They get termed empires because it is a convenient term to hand. Books on China do not worry about whether it was an empire or not they just stick the label on it and get on with describing what it actually was. The only state which has people seriously discussing whether or not it is an Empire is the very controversial case of the USA. That is to say they have to put the case precisely because it is questionable.
  4. note the conditional with "strict". Clearly "empire" is not used strictly - which is a real headache for us at Wikipedia.
  5. I agree the intro still needs a Dubious label - it is merely less dubious than how it was before.Dejvid (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Dejvid...
  1. I believe one, or all three definitions could apply, of which some nation states could encompass all three such as the British and Spanish Empires, to name a few. However, I would say that the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century could still be an empire (although a very weak one - militarily and commercially), because it had a very strong patriarchal church that was still respected by many in Orthodoxy, even though it was a pawn of the Ottoman Empire. Something that Oxford does not describe.
  2. the phrase of "...Achaemenid Empire have been termed empires". In my view, this raises a question that other people call it something else, which I have never heard. Since this is an English website, it should reflect an English term.
  3. I would agree with you on this one. The Dutch Republic during the 1600's was a major commercial nation, but because it was not ruled by a strong monarchy, it doesn't qualify. Same reasons why the US is not an empire, but a republic.
  4. I would say that we should drop the word "strict" from that sentence as there is no one definition, including any claim to the Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire-yes; Holy Roman Empire-no).
  5. Hear is what I would suggest for a paragraph:
Empire is a term derived from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government. An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; having a strong centralized political power; and a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group within this nation state. [1] However this term has been widely applied to other quite distinct nation states such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire (subservant to the Ottoman Turks during the fifteenth century) at one end, to the Colonial Empires of the Spanish Empire (sixteenth century)and the British Empire (nineteenth century) on the other. A Thalassocracy is a sea-borne empire were a group of small city states control far flung collections of islands and coastal strips, such as the Athenian dominated Delian League.
How's this for a substitute? Dinkytown (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a good improvement. Otebig (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit it - better than my version. My main quibble is that calling entities such as the Ottoman sultanate a nation state is a bit anachronistic.
Also, isn't the Oxford definition envisaging "commercial organization" as a totally separate meaning from states?
On a secondary point, I used "termed" not because there is any question that the Achaemenid Empire should be so called, merely that it has come to be so called for want of a better term rather than historians have come to a considered opinion that it belongs to a specific type of governmental organization called empire. you are probably right that it is over strong in this context. Dejvid (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay I'll just transplant it to the article and you can change the Ottoman phrase as you would like. I agree that Oxfords' 'commercial' criteria is a streach. The Venetian Republic and the Dutch Republic were strong commercial states, but never called empires, presumably because the had a strong legislative branches. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


The American Empire ('Again')

An empire is ruled over by An Empror or another type on monach (king/queen, Kiezer) and not a republic, this artical isnt about countrys that could be an empire, and dispite somepeople thinking the USA is an empire it isnt, as it says 'An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority;' the USA isnt ruled by a Monarch or a Central ruling authority as it is ruled in theory by the people because it is a republic. The EU and the Commonwealth dont have recognition is multiple countrys with a central Millitry and authority and the commonwealth is a consitional Empire as the British head of state still is head of state in 53 countrys world wide, if the USA remains on the Page the EU and the Commonwealth of nations should be mentioned in the same way the USA is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsau1991 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Rome was a Republic as well. America may not have a formal empire, but it has many of the trappings of it. This isn't a good/bad thing-it is simply how it is. Most powerful countries take on the trappings to some extent.Theeagleman (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"An empire is ruled over by An Empror or another type on monarch" . This is wholly untrue. The Roman empire began under the republic. France became a republic after the revolution, and permanently after 1871. It made no difference to the existence of the French empire, which was second only in size to the British empire. Even Britain had a only a nominal monarch, with all real power held by the parliament. Parliamentary government makes no diffence to the existence or non existence of an empire. Paul B (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Name a "president" that did rule over an "empire" in name? The Roman Empire did start as an republic - until it became an empire with an emperor, yet it still continued to have a Senate thereafter. The Roman Republic was already in bad shape in the mid first century BCE, before it was a formal empire. The US is not an empire in any since, just as the Venetian Republic and Dutch Republic weren't either. They have strong commercial economies (like US), and a strong military (like the US). They were not as expansionistic as the Brits or the French. The American "Empire" was the result of the Cold War and the reaction against the Soviet Union. Dinkytown (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thumb

No, it did not become an empire when it had an emperor. It already was an empire. The title "emperor" was not even especially significant to Augustus and his successors. Whether America is or isn't an empire is a wholly separate question. That depends on how one defines its relationship to other territories that might be deemed to be under its control. It is wholly irrelevant whether or not it is a republic. All presidents of France were heads of state of the French empire - which included colonies in North Africa, French Indo-China and elsewhere. Don't confuse two wholly separate issues. The French even emphasised republican imagery in their propaganda for their empire - as in this poster showing the various races of the empire with the tricolour. Paul B (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further more regardless of whether you feel America is an empire, many people feel it is in some ways or another. Thus it should be mentioned in this article in that regard. Theeagleman (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • First regarding the poster. There is no date on the poster so it is difficult to place where in French history it references. Who made the poster? Is it anti-colonal propaganda? No date and poorly sourced makes it a canidate for deletion (BTW: it is a cool poster...).
Second, the question comes up is what is the definition of an empire? Here's the definition from Oxford Online:
Empire:1) an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; 2) supreme political power; 3) a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group.
Third, regarding the French Republic. The following is Wikipedia's reference regarding that:

The French Third Republic (1870-10 July 1940)... was the political regime of France between the Second French Empire and the Vichy Regime. It was a republican parliamentary democracy that was created on 4 September 1870 following the collapse of the Empire of Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War.
The French had unwilling colonies, that's why they called themselves an empire, even though the government was a republic.
Forth, If the US is an 'empire' so is Canada, Norway, Morocco, Laos, and just about every country on the face of the Earth that has more than one ethnic group within its borders. The term "American Empire" has been used specifically in a negative context. Dinkytown (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You are very confused about the French empire. The poster is a post-WW2 image defending the Empire, which was threatened with disintegration at the time. The Empires of Napoleon I and Napoleon III are completely separate matters. What it refers to is the French colonial empire. Since I linked to the relevant article, how is that difficult to understand? Simply pointing out that France was a republic actually confirms what I was saying. Other empires that were either republics or not monarchical include the Carthaginian Empire and the two Athenian empires, the Delian league (also called the First Athenian Empire) and the Second Athenian Empire. There is absolutely no rule that an empire has to have an emperor. In fact that's topsy-turvy. An emperor is someone who rules an empire. It's the existence of an empire that defines an emperor, not the other way round. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thread a

  • There is no confusion here - just common sense... First the poster that you cited can be a good canidate for deletion. There is no date, origin or acceptable source for it so it could be anything: a document from the Napolean III era - which would qualify at that time to be an empire as Napoleon was an "emperor"; an offical government document; is it an art work by some broke French homeless artist on the Champs-Élysées; or a political poster for Jean-Marie Le Pen? The work is not a good source to defend as your proof of an American Empire.
You may not of read the above definitions that OED states in its first citation, an empire is a "an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch..." How more plain can that be? As you said by your own definition that there is "...absolutely no rule that an empire has to have an emperor" (in contradiction to OED) and that the whole definition is "...topsy-turvy", then Canada, Norway, Morocco, Laos, and Andorra, are then empires. Where's the cut-off point? How is America an empire? Are there any other 'empires' today - other than America? Dinkytown (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Dinkytown, will you please stop making totally irrelevant "points". The wiki status of the poster has no relevance at all. It was an illustration taken from the French Colonial Empire article. Why don't you just read the article and learn something. Read the other articles I linked too. You are just closing your eyes to evidence. If you imagine that that picture could have come from either of the Naploenic era you are totally ignorant of the history of art. Anyway, there is no dispute that the French republic was an empire from the 1870s to the 1960s. Furthermore there is no contadiction with the OED at all. In fact you have not even understood the OED definition. You are conflating three separate defintions into one. The OED gives three defintions which the lede of this article wrongly presents as a single definition. The first defintion is "an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority". Note that it says a single monarch or ruling authority. It specifically says there is an alternative to a monarch. The second definition is "supreme political power". There is no reference to a monarch there at all. The third defintion is "a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group". That's a reference to the expression "business empire", which obviously would not have an emperor. You are simply wrong on all counts. You are wrong about history too. Even the British empire did not have an emperor. The British monarch was king (or queen) of Great Britain and its territories. There was no title of emperor until 1876 when Queen Victoria was given the specific title of Empress of India. So the title of emperor had nothing whatever to do with the existence of the British empire as a whole at all. It only referred to India (from 1876-1947). Since you obviously know nothing about these facts of history, don't you think you should actually learn something about the subject? What Canada, Norway and other countries call themselves is their concern. But since no-one calls them an empire, it's beside the point. Reliable sources do refer to "American imperialism", so that should be discussed in the article, with due regard to the fact that the term is disputed. However your own source the OED says that an empire can be "a large commercial organization", so there is clearly room for just this usage. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To say that France held a colonial Empire is not the same as saying France was an Empire. In that context, Empire is being used to describe a part of the state in opposition to France proper. It is another example of how the term empire has so many meanings as to be meaningless. When someone accuses America imperialist it is simply a sign that the writer dislikes US foreign policy and what is actually meant by imperialism is almost as varied as the number of people who use the term US imperialism.Dejvid (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course France had an empire but France itself was not an empire. Equally Britain had an empire, but Britain itself was not an empire. Equally, Rome had an empire but Rome itself was not an empire; and Persia had an empire, but Persia itself was not an empire. Your point is true of all the major empires in history, so it's not much of a revelation! The claim being made about America, when the term "imperialism" is used, is that it controls other countries by having client states and by undermining or invading other countries which oppose it until a pro-American regime is established. You don't have to agree with this to accept that this is an interpretation of American foreign policy that some critics have and that that's why they use the term "imperialism". Paul B (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Paris was not by any definition part of the French colonial Empire. Rome was an empire and the city of Rome was part of the Roman Empire.
I dispute that there is a debate about whether America is an empire. There is a debate about US foreign policy. The sterility of using empire to refer to modern superpowers is, to my mind, shown by the page on Soviet Empire. It has a single ref on it. Using Empire in that kind of context is highly POV and belongs on a blog not on wikipedia.Dejvid (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi All - sorry for not getting back, been on the road for the past three days...
First, the poster (gezzz - again...). I'm not talking about where you got it, I am talking about where the guy who uploaded it got it from. Since you claim that I am "...totally ignorant of the history of art". You wouldn't mind educating me as to who the author is, and what year it was created - since that is what I have been asking all along... Since you are using it as your primary argument that the French had at one time an empire (agreed) and by association(?) so is the United States (hugh?), using it for this argument has been comical...
Second, What a country calls itself has been the whole issue of my argument ("What Canada, Norway and other countries call themselves is their concern...") Misplaced terms like "American imperialism" and "American Empire" are just inflamatory rhetoric that add nothing to a description, and boil down history into "good/bad" descriptions that are meaningless. I personally even disagree with the term "Soviet Empire" because as a structure and motivation, it was very different from every other 'empire' and was just political jargon that that served it political objectives at the time. "Soviet Empire" was coined by Reagan during the Cold War and was used as a hot-button topic - a statement used very effectively after the movie Star Wars. "American Empire" and "American Imperialism" is being used for the same political reasons - attaching with it all the negative historical imperialist baggage that it brings (Empires = Bad, Republic/Democracy = Good). Neil Armstrong was called the "Czar of the Moon (or Apollo XI CM) byu the Soveits, yet no one took that seriously. We have also been called the "Great Satan", yet I haven't seen anyone running around the US with horned-heads and pitch-forks (outside of Halloween).
Third, the French, Brits, Russians, Germans, etc., called themselves an empire, with all the motivations of the time (colony collecting, militarist bravado, cultural genocide, etc.), Although the US did make some major f*ck-ups over the decades, it was never claimed via an offical government venue (not to mention no one claiming to be an emperor of the US), and there are many examples in our foreign policy actions that went against this definition of 'empire'. The word you are probably looking for is the word Hegemony, which is very legitement and has far more meaning to the circumstances than simply an "Amermican Empire" - which is comical...
Forth, (there is no forth. Just doing it to piss you off... :) Dinkytown (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

thread b

I think that is the crux of your problem-You don't want America to look bad. I can sympathize, as I'm am an American and don't want us to look bad either. However keeping "the American Empire" off wikipedia isn't going to help us any, it is a valid addition to the article-we can include multiple perspectives in regards to the American empire, in fact we probably should. But it should be included. (I really gotta get used to signing these things) Theeagleman (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • First, don't embolden my words above. That is not the context that I am emphisizing. Second, you have no idea what my politics are so please don't personalize discussions. My "problem" as you describe, has nothing to do with anyone looking bad, it is "accuracy". The term 'empire' simply does not fit the United States. You will not find any US government office with the phrase Empire of the United States under any letter head, or title. Paul B put forth a good case with the French Republic / French Empire above, but I think it falls short of the mark. The main satisfaction of that definition rests with need of an emperor. Emperors are generally considered to be above kings and queens in honor and rank. If we are not an empire, are we a kingdom? Last I checked we didn't have a king or emperor... Using the term 'empire' simplifies the issue to comical non-sense. A term that might better fit the US and its world role would be American Hegemony, it is more accurate without the historical baggage. American Empire has not been taken off wiki - there's your link.
Why do you think the United States could be described as an empire? Dinkytown (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1) I emboldened the part I was emphasizing. In retrospect I should have quoted it. I apologize

2) You are nit-picking. I agree there are arguments againist America being called an empire, but there are arguments for it as well. I think that should be represented in this article instead of ignoring it.

3) I was referring to this article, but that article helps my point. Clearly the concept of an American empire is relevant to the an article on "Empires". We could simply do a short two paragraph summation of the discussion on the American Empire and than link the rest to the American Empire Wiki. Though it seems that article has problems of its own.

But regardless, in a discussion of "Empires" America's (perceived) imperial nature should be addressed. We need to address it, but in a fair way. Theeagleman (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Nit-picking? I gave you a pretty clear example of what an empire is and is not. I asked you what your definition of why the US is an empire and you failed to do that. There is already a pretty extensive paragraph on the American Empire in the article - so what are you complaining about? Dinkytown (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I am unhappy with the article as a whole and will be getting to it when I have more time in the next week. But my problem was with the the person who started this section who seemed to say that the America section should be deleted, or else the EU and Commonwealth should be included.

As for Definitions:

a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

That would (roughly) describe the modern American state. Especially with the steadily increasing power of the federal government since the 1930's. Theeagleman (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Where did you get that source? That doesn't describe the US at all, we have a three branch system of government. You are using the size of a state synominious with an empire. That would also include Russia, China, Canada, Brazil, all the way down to the Vatican as empires - wheres the cut-off point?. "Steadily increasing power..." doesn't make an empire. Dinkytown (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I got it here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empire . Modern Russia, China and to a much more debatbely Canada can arguably be considered Empires as well.
Regardless I don't argue that America is or isn't an Empire, just that a discussion of America as an Empire belongs here. Do you have a reason it shouldn't? Theeagleman (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason why they shouldn't be there are stated above in detail. American Empire should be removed because its not. You neglected one of the definitions from that website "Empire - a monarchy with an emperor as head of state". That sums it up. Dinkytown (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That is only one of the definitions. It's not some ultimate truth that trumps all other well known usages. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The American empire belongs there because it is perceived to be one (as evidenced by the American Empire Wiki. Since that exists, we can summarize that article in here (however since that article clearly needs clean up as well that will have to be taken into account)and than link over to the main article to prevent this one from getting too long.

And it doesn't have to fit all of the definitions of Empire to qualify for the article. Theeagleman (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To do list

Whatever you think about the above debate, the fact is this article needs work. A quick look over shows me:

1) Organizational Clean up. A lot of the information in the article is ok, but it's messy and cluttered. Some sections have just one long paragraph where several are needed.

2) Page Organization. Shouldn't "See also" and "external links" be above references and bibliography?

3) Instead of "Lingusitic Imperialism" and "History of Imperialism" shouldn't it be "Linguistic Empires" and "History of Empries"? And is linguistic empires really warranted?

Any/all input is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Empire as a Nation-State?

This is the headline definition of Empire:

An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; having a strong centralized political power; and a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group within this nation state.

Elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state), this is the headline definition of Nation-State:

The nation-state (or by its common name a country) is a certain form of state that derives its legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it. If successfully implemented, this implies that the citizens share a common language, culture, and values — which was not the case in many historical states. A world of nation-states also implements the claim to self-determination and autonomy for every nation, a central theme of the ideology of nationalism.

I like the definition of nation-state, which is quite precise. By this definition, an empire cannot be a nation-state, and indeed is nearly the antithesis of a nation-state.

I submit that an Empire is a set of territories, ruled by a central sovereign body, typically authoritarian or oligarchic, in which one nation has subjugated other nations and ethnic groups to its will by forcible means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.38.91 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment was from me. I have not seen any response, so I am therefore going to proceed to make the changes to the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jofclark (talk • contribs) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Empire

Maybe I didn't understand well what was said, so if I'm wrong someone correct me.

An autocratic empire can progress to being a republic, usually with a coup d’etat (e.g. Brazil in 1889;

As far as I know, the Brazilian Empire was never an Autocratic system. For it's time, Brazilian Empire was one of the most democratic countries of the world, remembering that at that time (1822-1889) only a few countries were democratic, like USA and England.

But the First Brazilian Republic, that was called the "Sword's Republic", was not a progression from an autocratic system, it was in fact an Autocratic system ruled by Marshals: Deodoro da Fonseca, elected by the insurgents without the participation of the people, and Floriano Peixoto, Deodoro's vice-president that ignored the fact that he couldn't be President by the constitution they had just made.

So a system that evolved by itself from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Parlamentarist Monarchy and with other progresses like the Abolition of Slavery, the Abolition of the two phases election (electors were supposed to choose second degree electors, and these were the ones who elected the politicians) to a normal one phase election, can't be designated as an autocratic system, and a Dictatorship of Marshals can't be designated as a progress for Brazil.

Only if the word "autocratic" in this case doesn't have the meaning i think it has, so if it has another meaning someone please correct me.

Spirictum (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They had a bridge

While maritime empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian, Achaemenid Persian Empire, British Empire) are intercontinental, far-flung overseas empires. [3]
A map showing the Achaemenid Empire shows that one could walk from one end to the other with a little bit extra in Thrace and Macedon. This hardly meets the standard of "far-flung overseas". After all Persia at one time managed to build a bridge across the dividing sea. Footnote 3 is about an invasion fleet that failed to conquer the "overseas" Greek cities. Taking out the example of the Achaemenid Persian Empire would in no way weaken the point or the article and would better balance the sentence by showing 2 examples of contiguous empires and 2 of non-contiguous. Nitpyck (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Empire derives from the Latin word imperium, denoting “military command” in Ancient Rome.

But imperium according to the Latin to English page http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/vocabulary/reference/imperium.asp means:
imperium power to command, authority, command, rule, control
imperium sovereignty, realm, command
So in lede: Empire from the Latin imperium, and in the Empire Defined section someone who know more latin than I could add a sentence with the proper etymology.Nitpyck (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Empire from 1945

This section is poorly written , inaccurate, and off-topic. I really don’t want to make this edit. But someone who cares about the article should. What I care about is that the section as written makes little sense.
A couple points- Japan is not the world's smallest country. Lenin and Jefferson had no opinions on the post WWII period. Stalin was not a small group of people. Stuart Creighton Miller is an expert on the late 19th and early 20th century. India, Indonesia, and Myanmar were historically colonies not empires. Since 9/11 the USA has not increased its interest in Mexico at the expense of Iraq. Nitpyck (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like opinions on whether the last section about Mehmet Akif Okur's theory should be deleted. This is a theory of the post-9/11 nature of empires proposed, in one paper, by a fairly obscure academic. Unless there other adherents to his ideas they are not appropriate (no matter how interesting they may be) in this encyclopedia article. Nitpyck (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up early empires

Besides simplifing the language used - for example "geographically extensive terrestrial" was changed to "large", I eliminated some uncited and questionable statements.
In the 15th century BC, the loosely-organised New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, ruled by Thutmose III, was the ancient Near East’s major force upon incorporating Nubia and the ancient city-states of the Levant. loosely organized is opinion without citation, also since Thutmose failed to control the Hittites and largearea of Mesopotamia maybe not the major force Despite their imperial condition, these early empires had no effective administrative control of their subject territories.Very questionable needs cite saying NONE of the empires existing before Rome had this control The ancient world’s earliest, centrally-organised empire, comparable to Rome, was the Assyrian empire (2000–612 BC)What does this mean- note Sargon the Great had everything organized to be under him which is as central as it gets, and the first, successful, multi-cultural empire was the Persian Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC)except the Egyptian, the Semitic empires that absorbed the akkadians, the medean empire, etc. were all multi-cultural.Nitpyck (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Voltaire

Voltaire’s remark that the Holy Roman Empire “was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire” is accurate to the degree that it ignores[4] German rule over Italian, French, Provençal, Polish, Flemish, Dutch, and Bohemian populations, and the efforts of the eighth-century Holy Roman Emperors (i.e. the Ottonians) to establish central control; thus, Voltaire’s “. . . nor an empire” observation applies to its late period.
This statement misses the point that 1- it was not holy 2 it was German and 3- the "emperor" had fairly limited powers over many of the states which made up his "empire" over a large period of its existence. Nitpyck (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Historically imperial countries

This paragraph is highly misleading as countries are grouped together on account of the existence of separatist groups and a weak connection to a previous Empire.

India and Indonesia would belong in the category of imperial-legacy states; they were created by Imperial powers; hence they are not 'historically imperial'.

There existed a Chinese, a Russian and a Spanish Empire; but the separatist movements in these countries are hugely different from one another. Furthermore, there are many immediate causes for those separatist movements other than an imperial legacy of amalgamated peoples: rebellion against dictatorship, civil war, the Cold War, Communist revolution, rise of nationalism in Europe, etc.

Since the paragraph lacks citations of any kind; I remove it until a more coherent version is put in place, if such concept exists in the literature at all.

MiG-25 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The forgotten Portuguese empire

The article does not mention the Portuguese empire and the latter was the first global empire in history (Portuguese Empire, [1]). It was also the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999.

I strongly suggest this to be added to the introduction or to a new section.

Another point missing is the effect on globalization.

References [1] The Portuguese Empire: 1415-1825 by Charles R. Boxer

--82.22.79.213 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC) JB

Roman Empire

Observation: A couple of problems. Though various historians like to quibble on precise terminology, the Roman Empire, for better or for worse, lasted from roughly the 3rd century BCE to at least the 13th century CE (15th century if you are defining it liberally). For the purposes of the chart that compares the various empires, distinguishing between the longevity of the "Roman" empire and the "Byzantine" empire is misleading in comparing it to other empires. The reality is that the imperial history covered a span that nearly rivals the Chinese empire (and many historians would dispute the notion of a continuous Chinese empire lasting from the 3rd century BCE to modern times).

And, also, the chart indicates that the Roman empire began in the 1st century BCE. This is misleading in the context of this article. Historians define the Roman "imperial" period as beginning in the first century because of the establishment of the office of the emperor (which actually is debatable in and of itself). But this article uses the term empire in the broader sense of one nation ruling over many nations. In that sense the Romans began their major territorial expansion in the 3rd century BCE (one could even argue before that). By the 1st century BCE Rome had long been an imperial power.

--22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk)

There is a difference between a "civilization-state (China) claiming the imperial title" versus "continuous Chinese empire". China is the world's oldest continuous civilization is it not? The heart of the situation is ethnocentric nationalism, which is evidenced by your assertion that China isn't a continuous civilization-state. Of course, not under Han Chinese leadership, but using your logic, Barack Obama isn't "American" because he is of Kenyan descent. =-P You are mixing up the exact purpose of this chart. It's about "civilization-states claiming the imperial title", not "continuous empires". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.2.108 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect claim

"Many of Europe's imperial monarchs of the 19th and 20th centuries were related by blood or marriage. Prior to World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm II of the German Empire, Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire and George V of the United Kingdom, were all blood relatives, related through Queen Victoria"

The last part of this is wrong. Tsar Nicholas II had no proximate connection to Queen Victoria at all. He was a cousin to George V due to their mutual Danish grandparents, not Queen Victoria.Eregli bob (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Nicholas and George were first cousins through Christian IX of Denmark; Nicholas and Wilhelm were second cousins once removed through Frederick William III of Prussia and third cousins through Paul I of Russia. Since this is way too complicated to fit into an image caption, I'll just remove the last part of the sentence. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BC and AD

I think that the notations BC and AD ought to be used. BCE and CE are less accurate, unless they refer to "Before the Christian Era and the Christian Era. If they refer to Common Era and Before the Common Era, they are less accurate, because they don't refer to the actual concept behind the numbering (the birth of Christ). I am going to change the notations back, the CE and BCE notations seem to be simple evidence of a left wing bias that practices atheism and attempts to abolish references to Christianity. The rest of the article seems to have a bit of a left wing bias as well. CaptainNicodemus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.32.206 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed before making that kind of major changes. BCE and CE reflect a non-Christan/neutral POV. I don't see how they can be "less accurate". They refer the common Western notion of the year. Can you give us an example of "...a bit of a left wing bias..." in the article? Dinkytown talk 16:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mongols!

WTF No mongol :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.7.110 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Union

If there is going to be discussion about the USA and the EU in the post-1945 section, then surely there must be a discussion of the multinational but Russian dominated USSR.38.112.81.103 (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

image

Why does the intro show images of European rulers and there blood relation (this part is totally irrelevant)?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the article is Empire, not Emperor. Hence my change. GBozanko (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

  1. ^ Oxford Dictionary|http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/empire?view=uk Retrieved 11/21/2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire/Archive_1&oldid=1080940178"