Who are the empire. What is an empire: definition, forms of empires, examples. most famous empires
Empire- when one person (monarch) has power over a vast territory inhabited by numerous peoples of different nationalities. This ranking is based on the influence, longevity and power of various empires. The list is based on the fact that an empire should, most of the time, be ruled by an emperor or a king, this excludes the modern so-called empires - the United States and the Soviet Union. Below is a ranking of the ten greatest empires in the world.
At the height of its power (XVI-XVII), the Ottoman Empire was located on three continents at once, controlling most of Southeast Europe, Western Asia and North Africa. It consisted of 29 provinces and numerous vassal states, some of which were later absorbed into the empire. The Ottoman Empire has been at the center of interaction between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. In 1922, the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist.
The Umayyad Caliphate was the second of the four Islamic Caliphates (system of government) established after the death of Muhammad. The empire under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty covered more than five million square kilometers, making it one of the largest in the world, as well as the largest Arab-Muslim empire ever established in history.
Persian Empire (Achaemenid)
The Persian Empire basically united all of Central Asia, which consisted of many different cultures, kingdoms, empires and tribes. It was the most big empire in ancient history. At the peak of its power, the empire covered about 8 million square kilometers.
The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire was part of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. The permanent capital and civilizational center of the Byzantine Empire was Constantinople. During its existence (more than a thousand years), the empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural and military forces in Europe despite setbacks and loss of territory, especially during the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Arab wars. The Empire received a mortal blow in 1204 on the Fourth Crusade.
The Han Dynasty is considered a golden age in Chinese history in terms of scientific advancement, technological progress, economic, cultural and political stability. Even to this day, most Chinese call themselves the Han people. Today, the Han people are considered the largest ethnic group in the world. The dynasty ruled China for almost 400 years.
The British Empire covered more than 13 million square kilometers, which is about a quarter of the earth's landmass of our planet. The population of the empire was approximately 480 million people (approximately one-fourth of humanity). The British Empire is by far one of the most powerful empires that has ever existed in human history.
In the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire was considered the "superpower" of its time. It consisted of eastern France, all of Germany, northern Italy, and part of western Poland. It was officially dissolved on August 6, 1806, after which there appeared: Switzerland, Holland, the Austrian Empire, Belgium, the Prussian Empire, the Principalities of Liechtenstein, the Confederation of the Rhine and the first French Empire.
Russian empire existed from 1721 until the Russian Revolution in 1917. She was the heir to the kingdom of Russia, and the forerunner of the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire was the third largest of the ever-existing states, second only to the British and Mongolian empires.
It all started when Temujin (later known as Genghis Khan, considered one of the most brutal rulers in history) vowed in his youth to bring the world to its knees. The Mongol Empire was the largest adjacent empire in human history. The capital of the state was the city of Karakorum. The Mongols were fearless and ruthless warriors, but they had little experience in managing such a vast territory, which caused the Mongol Empire to quickly fall.
Ancient Rome made a great contribution to the development of law, art, literature, architecture, technology, religion and language in the Western world. In fact, many historians consider the Roman Empire to be the "ideal empire" because it was powerful, fair, long-lived, large, well-defended, and economically advanced. The calculation showed that from its foundation to the fall, a whopping 2214 years passed. It follows from this that the Roman Empire is the greatest empire ancient world.
Share on social networks
What is an empire? In historical circles, disputes periodically flare up regarding the exact definition this concept. One way or another, the imperial form of government had a significant impact on the development of civilization.
Many ways of social interaction appeared thanks to empires. In fact, there are no more empires in the twenty-first century, and the first one appeared more than three thousand years ago.
Definition criteria
There are several criteria by which one can understand what an empire is. One of the most faithful is the area of the state. The classical definition implies a state that unites many lands with a population of various nationalities. All power is concentrated in the hands of one institution (most often the monarch). At the same time, the same rights and obligations apply to the territory of all controlled lands. The classical states of this type are the Ottoman and Russian empires. Such states arose as a result of the absorption of other entities that rallied around the center.
Titled leader at the head
A more obvious, but less correct criterion - the form of government, will also help to understand what an empire is. If the person who is at the head of the state bears the title of emperor, then such a state can be considered an empire. History proves that almost all monarchs who endowed themselves with such a title led the imperial powers. But there are also exceptions. Some extravagant African dictators often assumed the titles of emperors. At the same time leading a small country and not having geopolitical weight. This "fashion" appeared in the second half of the twentieth century.
Continental view of the empire
One type of empire is continental. Such states appear as a result of an aggressive foreign policy. Military expansion leads to the annexation of new lands. Therefore, a powerful state must have a strong regular army. Based on this, it follows that in such a state the army occupies an important place in public and political life.
And the military influences all government decisions. The empire acts in the interests of a narrow circle of people. Any politician must have the support of the highest military officials. Therefore, the imperial system is very often identified with the dictatorial one.
Political structure
The continental empire has the same political system throughout the territory. Representatives of different nationalities live in the state. Imperial nationality is identified either as civil (a resident of the Ottoman Empire is an Osman, but ethnically it can be an Arab, Ethiopian, and so on), or as a supranational one (for example, in the Macedonian Empire, all residents were considered Hellenes by nationality, regardless of ethnicity). When new territories are included in the state, the government has to introduce a single currency, language, and so on. This was necessary to unify the population and prevent the emergence of separatist sentiments.
colonial empire
And for its own interests, it conquers territories with which it does not border. The conquered lands come under the authority or protectorate of the center (metropolis), but at the same time they have different rights and obligations from it. The colony (or protectorate) is obliged to give a significant part of the resources of the mother country. Most often, native armies are used during the war, but this is not necessary. For example, in the Russian Empire, representatives of a non-titular nation (non-Russian) were rarely used during wars. But the inhabitants of the colonies were drafted into the royal troops of the British Empire.
The colonial empire has several institutions of power. In the colonies, the governors represent the state. At the same time, there are local self-government bodies that are accountable to them. It is necessary to keep other lands in obedience to the metropolis through despotism. American natives felt for themselves what an empire is when they were almost completely destroyed.
In history
The first powerful state that became an empire is Akkad. It did not last long and rested solely on a military dictatorship. After that, there were several entities with a strong monarch at the head. Babylon has become a unifying center for many lands. Under King Hammurabi, the unification of the population was carried out. At the same time, primitive logistics appeared. Major cities states were connected by roads. And for communication, mail with messengers was used. The Roman Empire appeared in the first century BC.
This is one of the most powerful states in the history of mankind. It had a significant impact on the development of civilization. After the collapse of the empire, for many centuries people could not achieve such cultural and technological progress.
Rise to power
The Roman Empire came about as a result of the seizure of power by Julius Caesar. He managed to create a powerful centralized state. Huge territories were controlled from Rome. At the same time, there were local self-government bodies with broad powers. The political system helped to control the entire Mediterranean coast, part of Asia and Africa. All territories were equal in rights. Therefore, local elites quickly went to cooperate with the state. Also formed a civil nation - Roman. But the growth of national consciousness and the conflicts of local elites ultimately led to the collapse of the state.
Ancient Rome is considered a classic example of imperial statehood. At the same time, he combined different types of empires - continental and colonial. In many ways, future empires copied the Roman experience. But no one managed to achieve such power for a long period.
Empire: definition
So, based on the above, we can clearly define the criteria for an imperial state:
- centralized power.
- At the head is a monarch who bears the title of emperor.
- A vast territory that includes lands inhabited by different national groups.
- Presence of colonies or protectorates.
Some historians and political scientists also rank countries that are waging an aggressive foreign policy to empires. Most often in leftist circles, governments refer to geopolitically strong countries as imperialist. This means armed expansion or any other methods of aggressive pressure on the governments of sovereign states. In the Soviet period, similar views on the definition were in the textbooks on history and political science.
The most famous empires: Russian, Ottoman, German (Reich), Austro-Hungarian, French, British, Roman.
All of them had a different political structure and their own characteristics. Only Great Britain has survived practically unchanged to this day. National revolutions and the growing popularity of leftist ideas in Europe led to the gradual disintegration of empires and the independence of their former colonies.
The loud word "empire" today is anything, up to chain stores - "Empire of Taste" or "Empire of Bags". It is not surprising that the meaning of this concept has blurred, and it is not clear to many why Russia is still considered an empire (despite the absence of an emperor), and whether this is good or bad for its inhabitants.
Although the Latin word "emperor" ("ruler") first called himself Julius Caesar, empires arose long before him. Historians define them as large states with a single political center, uniting many regions and peoples. These were Assyria, Rome, China, the Arab Caliphate, the Mongol and Ottoman empires. At the same time, their rulers often did not have an imperial title, but it was boldly appropriated by the rulers of such small and weak states as Vietnam, Ethiopia and even Haiti (it was an empire twice). This confusion forces us to consider as an empire only those powers that have had a significant influence on world history. These, no doubt, include Russia-Rus, which, from its very inception in the 9th century, occupied a vast territory and included various nationalities and tribes. She also had a single center, albeit constantly shifting: Novgorod - Kyiv - Vladimir - Moscow - St. Petersburg.
Although the Russian tsar took the title of emperor only in 1721, the understanding of the "imperial" status has been going on in our country for a long time. As, however, in other large states that were part of the orbit of the Roman Empire and (or) the Christian civilization that arose on its ruins. Unlike the eastern empires, which quietly coexisted with each other, the Roman one claimed the status of the only one, considering the rest of the world "barbarian", waiting for conquest and cultivation. True, the empire now and then fell into instability, and in 395 it finally split, giving rise not just to two confessions of Christianity, but also to two incarnations of the imperial idea. In the West, Rome, having lost the role of a political center, remained the center of sacred power, where they were crowned at first. Charlemagne, and then the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. At the same time, the Western empire remained an idea that first crowned the feudal freemen, and then, at the end of the Middle Ages, the formation of new national states.
In the East, events developed differently: the Second Rome, later called Byzantium, slowly retreating under the onslaught of the Gentiles, not only kept political and religious traditions, but also broadcast them to areas not affected by Roman influence, primarily to Russia, where Byzantine missionaries in the 10th century brought Christianity. And the new faith helped unite the heterogeneous population of the Rurik empire into a single community that survived both fragmentation and the terrible Horde invasion, which was replaced by a long-term yoke. However, there is a version that it was the influence of the Mongol Empire, the borrowing of its traditions of a single centralized power that saved Russia from the split into small states that occurred in Western Europe. The Horde carelessly contributed to the unification of the Russian principalities (it was more convenient for them to collect tribute), not caring that this single state would inevitably destroy them. This is what happened during the reign. Ivan III when, in the words of Marx, "amazed Europe, barely noticing the existence of Muscovy ... was stunned by the sudden appearance of a huge state on its eastern borders."
Shortly before this, in 1453, Constantinople fell under the onslaught of the Muslim Turks, who by that time had captured all the Orthodox states, except for Russia, which began to be perceived as the legitimate heir of the Second, and therefore the First Rome. It is believed that the concept of "Moscow - the Third Rome" was first formulated in 1523 by a Pskov monk. Philotheus, however, it is known that similar thoughts were expressed 30 years before by the Moscow Metropolitan Zosima. The idea, as they say, was in the air. At the same time, legends arose that once the Byzantine emperor gave the royal regalia to the Kyiv prince, including the famous Monomakh's hat (actually made somewhere in Central Asia), and that Rurik derived from Prusa- emperor's brother august. It should be noted that at that time the West, frightened to death by the onslaught of the Turks, fully approved of the claims of Russia to the Byzantine inheritance. But in our time, foreign historians (primarily, not surprisingly, the Poles) declare that the theory of Moscow as the Third Rome was invented only in the 19th century, and Filofei did not say anything like that.
A series of internal unrest and military defeats stopped the imperial ambitions of Muscovy for a while. However, in Ser. XVII century, she resumed the onslaught on all frontiers. In the east, having reached the borders of China, and in the West, having annexed the "mother of Russian cities" Kyiv, the power of the Romanovs loudly declared claims to a special role in world politics. The New Time has come, and the religious foundations of power again gave way to political ones, which Russian ideologists could not ignore.
In their writings, Moscow was more often compared not with Constantinople, but with the First Rome - the bearer of universal secular power. This idea was especially actively introduced into the board Peter the Great, which updated the ideological life of Russia no less significantly than the material one. It was formulated more clearly than others by the former Moldavian ruler Dmitry Kantemir, who outlined in the treatise "Monarchy Physical Reasoning" the theory of the change of four empires - eastern Persian, southern Macedonian, western Roman and northern Russian. He (however, far from being the first) called Peter the “new Constantine”, emphasizing his role as a defender of both imperial power and the Christian faith. It is known that on the eve of the proclamation of Peter as emperor, they wanted to make his crown according to the model of Konstantinov, moreover, passing off the antiquity found miraculously.
As a result, the king refused the coronation and acted differently. On August 30, 1721, the Treaty of Nystadt was concluded with Sweden, which crowned the longest and most difficult of Peter's wars with victory. On this occasion, the Senate and the Synod presented the tsar with the title of Emperor of All Russia, again justifying this with Roman traditions:
"As usual, from the Roman Senate for the noble deeds of emperors, their titles are publicly presented to them as a gift."
October 22 (November 2) in the Trinity Cathedral of the new capital - St. Petersburg - another ideologue of the empire Feofan Prokopovich in his sermon, he substantiated the new title of Peter, which was immediately adopted by the newly-minted emperor under the thunder of hundreds of cannons of the Peter and Paul Fortress and warships that stood on the Neva. According to an eyewitness, "everything seemed to be on fire and one could think that the earth and sky were ready to collapse." As for the imperial crown, it was first made for Peter's wife Catherine; in 1724, she, a rootless laundress, was solemnly crowned in Moscow's Assumption Cathedral.
The new title of Peter was promptly recognized by the European powers, including the defeated Sweden. By that time, there was only one emperor in Europe - the Roman emperor, who was sitting in Vienna, although the monarchs of France, England and Spain, who captured vast colonies during overseas voyages, claimed this role. Having entered the family of great powers, Russia actively joined the colonial race, which it tried to justify with imperial traditions. If the Western powers were striving - both then and later - to seize natural resources (and markets for products made from them), then Russia, where there was already enough of these resources, rushed to trade routes and seaports.
This expansion turned into a conscious policy during the reign Catherine II, which not only annexed the Crimea and Novorossiya, but also brought the “Greek project” to life, declaring through the mouths of its ideologists of the desire to return Orthodox cross on the dome of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. The second grandson of the Empress, who received the symbolic name Constantine, was preparing to be the future rulers of Greece. Another direction of Catherine's policy was the collection of Slavic lands. Both projects - "Greek" and "Slavic" - firmly entered the political agenda of the empire, which caused reasonable fears in Western countries.
In the fight against external challenges, Russia needed internal unity. Into the reign Nicholas I the "theory of official nationality" tried to provide it. This apotheosis of official thought declared autocracy to be the “backbone” of the state, to which Orthodoxy and nationality obeyed, meaning “the historical identity of Russia” - by this the minister understood “boundless devotion to autocracy”. The trouble is not even that this theory replaced the power of a single law for all with the will of the monarch, but that, contrary to all the magnificent theories, the state undermined the inequality of peoples and religions, not to mention the rapidly growing social inequality. These problems eventually destroyed the power of the Romanovs, as well as the ancient empires of the East - the Ottoman and Chinese.
In the 20th century, not only the "backward" Russian Empire disappeared from the world map, but also its European "sisters" - the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The reason was the onslaught of the revolutionary movement that had been growing for a long time, declaring monarchical power, along with religion, a relic of the past, a stronghold of reaction. Liberal ideology condemned some empires, having nothing against others who raised republican and democratic ideas to the shield.
The President was the first to speak about the United States as an "empire of freedom" James Monroe, the author of a well-known doctrine, but only a century later, Western political scientists became concerned about the difference between “good” and “bad” empires. Classics of geopolitics, German Carl Schmitt and American Halford Mackinder, divided all empires into "land" and "sea" (later they were called "tellurocratic" and "thalassocratic", or "Eurasian" and "Atlantic"). The former are characterized, as it were, by the seizure of large territories, despotic power, technical backwardness, and the "digestion" of conquered peoples. For the second - reliance on coastal trading posts, democracy, scientific and technological progress. In the list of "land" empires formulated by the ideologues of the Cold War, along with the Assyrian and Mongolian powers, Russia occupies a prominent place.
It is clear that these theories are sucked out of thin air, and geopolitics as presented by many of its luminaries is not a science, but rather an occult teaching. It is also clear that Western geopoliticians do not see much difference between the tsarist and Soviet systems of power. This propaganda canvas does not correspond to historical truth.
Vadim ERLIKHMAN
Empire Theory What is an empire? What is the imperial we...
Empire theory
What is an empire? What is imperial thinking? Who are the imperial peoples? Is this good or bad?
In the first approximation, it is obvious: for the population of the colonies, the empire is bad, for the inhabitants of the metropolis it is good.
But if you think about it a little, at least two questions arise:
Is the empire always evil for the natives, and is the metropolis always the oppressor?
Why is the moral assessment of the empire based on the point of view of the colony? Why so one-sided?
When considering any topic seriously, the conversation should begin with terms. Therefore, one cannot do without long tedious quotations from dictionaries.
In common usage, an empire is a state whose monarch calls himself emperor, that is, with the same title as king, shah, negus, and others.
Dictionaries interpret the term more broadly, although with varying degrees of detail.
:
Wikipedia:
Empire (from lat. imperium- power, neutral meaning - common political space)
· a large multinational entity, managed from one decision-making center in the interests of the entire political space; at the same time, it is, as a rule, a continental empire with vast outskirts without a clear distinction metropolises .
· colonial power who established his dominance over colonies and dependent territories exclusively in the interests of the mother country; it is, as a rule, a maritime empire with a clear division into the mother country and outer colonies;
· monarchical state headed by emperor .
· Emperor ( lat. imperātor "chief", "ruler", in particular - "military leader", "commander", later - "emperor" in the modern sense) - title monarch , heads of state ( empire ). From the time of the Roman emperor august ( 27 BC e. - 14 AD e. ) and his successors, the title of emperor acquired a monarchical character. From the time of the emperor Diocletian ( 284- 305) in charge of Roman Empire almost always there were two emperors with titles august (their co-rulers bore the title Caesars ). Of the 92 Roman emperors, 36 achieved this status through military service. This fact confirms the conclusion that in certain periods the army acts as one of the main channels social mobility .
· Also used to refer to the rulers of a number of Eastern monarchies ( China , Korea , Mongolia , Ethiopia , Japan , pre-Columbian states America , pre-colonization states Africa and Oceania ), despite the fact that the name of the title in the state languages of these countries does not come from lat. emperor.
The tradition of naming monarchs I. after the collapse of the Roman Empire was preserved in Byzantium, then spread to Western Europe. In accordance with the Anglo-Saxon political science tradition, India refers to the rulers of traditional, centuries-old monarchies - Chinese, Japanese, and so on. In 1876, the Queen of England was proclaimed Empress of India. The title of I. was worn by the Italian king, the rulers of Ethiopia, Brazil, Mexico, Haiti, China, Central Africa, and others; it is currently only preserved in Japan.
A somewhat broader definition was found in the political dictionary:
An empire is a large state entity that unites several countries and peoples around a single political center under the auspices of a universal idea of a civilizational, religious, ideological, sometimes economic nature ... ... In addition, according to the structure of the main communications, one should define "consolidated" (continental) and "non-consolidated" ( maritime) empires. The former have land communications of the center with all the constituent parts of the state, the latter have only maritime communications.
That is, the Empire in the modern sense is any multinational state, although with an emphasis (in the public mind) on colonies.
Now consider the term Colony
Big Encyclopedic Dictionary :
The colony (from lat. colonia - settlement) -
1) a country or territory under the rule of a foreign state (metropolis), deprived of political and economic independence and governed on the basis of a special regime.
2) A settlement founded by ancient peoples (Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans) in foreign lands.
3) Settlement of migrants from another country, region.
4) A community of countrymen in a foreign city, in a foreign country; community.
Wikipedia
The colony - a dependent territory under the rule of a foreign state (metropolis), without independent political and economic power, governed on the basis of a special regime. Often, the colonial regime does not grant the rights of citizens to the population of the controlled territory, comparable to the rights of citizens of the metropolis. At the same time, the citizens of the metropolis enjoy more power and privileges in the colonial territories than the indigenous population.
All these definitions comprehensively describing the phenomenon, in my opinion, have a drawback. They do not explain where, in fact, empires come from? How do they arise? Why are some states called empires, while others, large in size, are not.
Therefore, once again I will take time by quoting the Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron 1890-1907
The value of this quote is in returning to the original source - to Roman history, where the concept of empire and the term itself came from.
Empire (Imperium) - among the Romans, the highest state power, together with the maiestas, belonged to one people, who exercised this power in elections, in legislation, in the supreme court, in deciding war and peace.
The reflection of this power is I. as the highest authority of magistrates, first kings, then - in republican times - the so-called senior magistrates (mag. maiores), that is, consuls, praetors, dictators, proconsuls, propraetors, prefect of the city and praetorian and censors ; junior magistrates I. did not have. I. was given by the people through elections or by a special law in the curiata comitia (lex curiata de imperio).
I. magistrate gave authority:
1) the military, along with the right of life and death in relation to subordinates, but only outside the city;
2) civil: the right of jurisdiction, the imposition of penalties (fines, multae, imprisonment, even corporal punishment).
If I. was limited to some criminal rights, she was called "simple", imper. merum, and was identical with jus or potestas gladii, which the governors of the provinces had. Since the persons who were given I. did not have the same rights, for example. the consul received a military I., a praetor only a civil one, then early they already distinguished the large I. from the smaller I. (Imp. maius, minus); the highest degree of I., called summum I., in the republic was given to the dictator. As an exception, people could clothe I. and persons who did not hold magistrate positions, for example. under a law passed by Rubrius in 43, part of the supreme rights was granted to the municipal authorities in Gaul. According to Mommsen, the cum imperio magistrates had the right to transfer I. and other rights to other citizens.
In theory, the I. of the people continued to exist even after the fall of the republic, but it, along with other republican authorities, completely passed to the emperors. Subsequently, when the former republican character of imperial power disappeared, I. began to be given to the emperor immediately upon accession to the throne, by one law (the so-called lex de imperio), which provided not only the supreme military I. for life and throughout the entire territory of Roman I., but also and many other significant powers, some of which, already in the last century of the republic, were combined with the emergency I., which was given to some generals.
Over time, the concept of I. changed its meaning and began to designate the territory over which the power designated by it extended: hence the name of I. Roman, Byzantine and others.
So, initially, the emperor is just an honorary military title in republican Rome, which the soldiers awarded the commander after a major victory. For the first time, the title of emperor was awarded to L. Aemilius Paul (189 BC) (according to other sources, Scipio Africanus). If the term had remained in its original meaning, Rumyantsev, Suvorov, Paskevich, Skobelev would have been Russian emperors.
However, Octavian August, having become in 27 BC. The sole ruler of Rome used the title of emperor already as the highest title of state power. Today, in the historical literature, states are called empires, which often never knew such a word and did not feel that they were. That is, the term began to mean the qualitative state of the state.
An excursion into the history of the issue was needed in order to formulate clear criteria by which a state can either claim the status of an empire or lose it. This is all the more important as the term has begun to be abused. AT reference literature word empire is applied to about 50 states on the basis of their multinationality. But if everything is in order with the Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman empires, then the Central African Empire and the Empire of Haiti cause at least a smile.
Of course, the Roman Empire, which grew from one city to the unification of hundreds of peoples and dozens of formerly independent states, should be taken as a standard.
This determines the first necessary sign of an empire - multinationality.
But since nations in the classical definition arose relatively recently, a defining clarification should be made: the first sign of an empire should be considered the inclusion in the state of peoples who, firstly, differ significantly from the titular nation either by race or by belonging to another language family, and secondly, before being included in the empire, they had a statehood that had been formed and recognized by their neighbors.
Thus, unions of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Italian, Thracian and other tribes do not fall under the first sign, even when united in a centralized state. But the empire of Charlemagne falls, which included Gauls, Germans and Italians. As well as the Mauryan Empire, Chinese empire, empires of Genghis Khan, Timur and others. Japan in fact became an empire only in modern times, after the capture of Korea and Manchuria. As well as the Third Reich became a Reich in 1938 with the Anschluss of Austria.
Accordingly, the exclusion of the empire-forming component from the composition of the state entails an automatic loss of status. What happened with the same Japan and Germany in 1945, and with the British Empire a little later, in 1947.
But from the point of view of the colonies, it is not the fact of conquest that gives the term "empire" a negative meaning. Who knows who, when he conquered and in what order.
The second sign of the empire is the formation of a clear division into the mother country and the colony. The essence of this division is not only power functions, otherwise any capital can be recognized as a metropolis. The bottom line is that every resident of the metropolis, under imperial law, has more rights than a resident of the colony.
Such privileged inhabitants of the empires were Roman citizens, Sahibs (white gentlemen in India), true Aryans, etc.
France of the time of Louis 14 was a multinational country. There, in addition to the Gauls, lived the Normans, the descendants of the Vikings, the Germanic tribe of the Burgundians, the Basques. There was no single French language. Individual provinces spoke their own dialects. I have come across statements that their inhabitants did not always understand each other. However, France was not an empire on 2 grounds, because the inhabitants of Paris did not have any exclusive rights. Formally, France acquired its 2nd sign during the time of Napoleon, who revived the empire of Charlemagne. In fact, this happened with the acquisition of overseas territories, when France itself turned into a classical metropolis.
On the other hand, the state created by Alexander the Great on the bones of the Persian state cannot be called the Macedonian Empire, because the conqueror did not make Macedonia a metropolis. On the contrary, he settled in Babylon. In fact, there was a change in the dynasty of the Persian Empire, in which Macedonia, instead of the country of the winner, remained a remote and poor province. The quick death of Alexander did not allow others to fully experience this moment.
For Spain, the first sign of an empire could only be the possession of Flemish, but not the conquest of America, because the existence of independent states in it was not recognized by European law. They saw only savages. That is, Spain, while meeting the definition of an empire on the second basis, did not formally pass on the first. As a result, the ruler of the largest state in the 16-17 centuries remained an ordinary king.
The dual empire - Austria-Hungary, in comparison with the classical empire has only one difference - in it two peoples belonged to the privileged part - the Austrians and the Hungarians. The rest - Italians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Rusyns, Ukrainians, Croats, Serbs, Vlachs were despised as blacks.
Austria-Hungary should be discussed in more detail. In modern times, there was only one generally recognized emperor - the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German people - a representative of the Habsburg dynasty, and the German states were also part of the empire. Accordingly, the Spanish Habsburgs could not call themselves emperors by definition. Yes, and the head of the British Empire was called the king of England, and the emperor only of India.
Peter I became the second current emperor at that time. Russia's claims to the status of an empire were recognized for a long time and with difficulty. And having recognized it, they developed a certain principle of transition to a new quality, after which the empires began to grow like mushrooms, up to the Brazilian Empire.
Based on what has been said, we can finally define the empire:
An empire is a multinational state created by an association of previously independent nations, which at the time of the unification had all the attributes of statehood, having significant racial and national differences, in which the inhabitants of the titular nation in Everyday life enjoy wider political and economic rights compared to the rest of the population.
Now let's apply this definition to Russia.
In 1721 On the initiative of the senators, Tsar Peter was given the title of Emperor of All Russia and the title: Great and Father of the Fatherland in 1721 after the victorious end of the Northern War, during which the Baltic provinces of Sweden were annexed. The main event was not that they differed in ethnic composition, but that quite recently it was the territory of the Livonian Order - a subject of international law.
Up to this point, the sign did not exist, because those included in the composition Kievan Rus the Finno-Ugric and Siberian tribes did not have statehood, and the inhabitants of the left-bank Ukraine, included in the Muscovite kingdom at the beginning of the 16th century, were neither foreigners nor an independent state entity.
But, strictly speaking, the first sign of the empire was achieved by the capture of Kazan. That is, the inclusion in Russia of a deliberately foreign state entity. So the English Queen Elizabeth, without a doubt, called Ivan the Terrible emperor. I believe that Ivan the Terrible, having been anointed to the kingdom without asking the Austrian emperor, considered this action quite sufficient, because, I repeat, at that time the emperor was alone, and the tsar understood such things clearly. Suffice it to recall how he treated (as the "grandfather" of the first year) the newly-baked Swedish king Gustav Vasa for not having royal ancestors.
In the actions of Peter, on the one hand, it was a certain liberty, dictated by the desire to be recognized by Europe as a full-fledged player at any cost. On the other hand, this is a clear evidence of a changed world, about which he unequivocally informed those around him.
In any case, if the first sign of the empire was Russia, albeit rather late, but achieved, then very big doubts arise about the second.
It is unlikely that any of the objective researchers will undertake to assert that the Great Russians enjoyed exclusive rights in comparison with the Little and Belorussians, the Balts, the Caucasians or the inhabitants of Central Asia. The only exception can be considered the residency requirement. (which, based on the results of the events of the 20th century, should objectively be recognized as justified and far-sighted).
By objective researchers, I mean our equals, that is, the inhabitants of the empire-forming peoples. The arguments of historical losers, primarily the Poles, who squandered and squandered their own empire, cannot be taken seriously because of the obvious desire to take historical revenge and the conscious positioning of itself as a state hostile to Russia. In this clinical case, there can be no question of any objectivity. The arguments of the peoples, consciously, at the state level and at the level of the elites, who have taken the pose of offended and want to earn money on this unsightly pose, cannot be considered serious either.
(In this sense, the mentality of the subject of the empire - the Hungarians - differs markedly from the object of the empire - the Czechs. But most of all, I am impressed by the position of India, which took the best from the British Empire and goes its own way into the future, without stumbling about the past.)
Compare the situation in Russia and the behavior in the colonies of ethnic British, French, Spaniards, Turks, not to mention the Japanese and Germans. Despite certain inevitable excesses, and the Russians' natural awareness of their significance (up to the God-bearing people), no one can argue that they systematically used national leadership for private, selfish purposes and that national snobbery is a primordial and distinctive feature of the Russian people. On the contrary, the national elites were included in the general imperial elite with all the rights and privileges (could such be in England or Japan), and Russian sympathy for Indians, blacks and other oppressed people is well known.
Such a traditional accusation against empires as the plundering of national wealth in the interests of the mother country cannot be categorically recognized. It was with Russian money and Russian hands that the industry of the Baltics, Transcaucasia, and Central Asia was created from scratch. From the point of view of the classical metropolis, this is utter nonsense.
As a result, we can state that the Russian empire is not a classical empire, because there is no racial and national inequality in the form of a system fixed in one form or another.
But the USSR became a full-fledged empire, in which inequality before the law appeared. Only the victims of this inequality were not peoples, but social groups exploiters abroad, which is not important for the formation of an imperial - comprehensive worldview.
But the realization of the fact that the Russian Empire was not classical for a long time does not deny the existence of the imperial mass consciousness, for which we are periodically reproached.
If we talk about Russian nationalism, then its origins were laid in Soviet times, when it was the national minorities that received visibly greater rights and opportunities. Only the Russian people seriously and sincerely accepted the idea of internationalism, for which they paid dearly. Older people remember this very well. And it is from those times that there is an ardent dislike for Caucasians.
Moreover, the imperial Russian people, up to the elite, were themselves the object of nationalist pressure from ethnic Germans. Suffice it to recall a textbook example, when General Yermolov, as a reward for pacifying the highlanders, arrogantly asked the tsar to make him into the Germans.
Each country has its own way of thinking. Speaking of this, I do not mean gastronomic or musical tastes. It's about scale.
Some think in terms of home and family, not interested in what is happening behind the neighbor's fence. ( A frog sits under a coconut shell and thinks that the whole world is there. Eastern wisdom). For some, the fence passes through the territory of the region, the border of the state.
And there are peoples for whom there is thinking in global categories. This is precisely the imperial scale, which arises not by itself, but as a glorious heritage of ancestors.
Based on their historical events, I divide all nations into 4 categories:
1. Imperial peoples (Russians, British, Germans, French, Chinese, Japanese, Turks)
2. Peoples who really wanted to build an empire, but could not or lost their imperial status centuries ago. A number of such peoples are characterized by an acute inferiority complex in relation to the 1st category. (First of all Poles, and also Swedes, Lithuanians, Spaniards, Italians, Zulus)
3. Peoples who have never claimed imperial status, but have long had sovereign statehood recognized by their neighbors (Swiss, Greeks, Tatars, Afghans, Thais, etc.)
4. And, finally, peoples who never had statehood in history or gained independence less than a century ago (Kurds, Finns, Ukrainians, Balts, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Balochs, Angolans)
I repeat, the difference between peoples is not in individual features of the national character, but in the breadth of thinking. Therefore, the people of the 4th lowest category will never understand the people of the 1st highest category. It is simply inaccessible to understanding, just as the concept of "height" is inaccessible to a two-dimensional being.
On the population of Ukraine should dwell in more detail. It is extremely heterogeneous and is not divided at all into orange and blue, but by category.
1. Left-bank Ukraine has been part of the Moscow kingdom since the 16th century, when Russia had not yet become an empire. Accordingly, the Little Russians inhabiting it are full-fledged builders of the empire on a par with the Great Russians. They are with absolutely good reason to be ranked among the imperial people. Therefore, when politicians say that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, they mean exactly this and this particular part of Ukrainians.
2. Zaporizhzhya Cossacks before the conquest of New Russia were people very close to the 3rd category. Therefore, after moving to North Caucasus becoming Kuban and Terek Cossacks, having got into the empire a century later than the Left-Bank Ukraine, historically quickly, in one leap, jumped to the highest category, also becoming the creators of the empire with a corresponding expansion of the scale of perception of the world.
3. Crimea, populated mainly by the imperial people.
4. Right-bank Ukraine, included in the already established empire, but in large part still remains at level 4.
5. Galicia is completely 4 levels.
Galicia is also worth dealing with. It's a very curious situation. These are the people of the 4th category, which in 1991 decided to surpass the Zaporozhians by building their own classical empire, the role of a colony (economic and political) in which was assigned to the Donbass and Crimea. They themselves were preparing to try on the pith helmets of the Saibs and ride rickshaws.
The hat turned out to be not according to Senka. And without becoming the people of the first category, they abruptly returned to their primitive state.
The difference in the scale of worldview also affects the sharpness of the discussion.
Only equals can speak as equals. The peoples of the first category discuss with each other the destinies of the world, the burden of the white man, the ways of managing mandated territories, they are able to point out to each other mistakes in managing colonies and peep the best options. They also create international law, interstate unions, ideology, and thereby set the vector of development of civilization.
When representatives of the 2nd category try to discuss with them on an equal footing, they are listened to. Sometimes carefully, so as not to miss constructive criticism. They can even politely listen to arguments without changing their faces, saying that they, second-rate, could manage the empire better. But at the same time, the Imperials always remember the saying: "God did not give the pig a horn."
The opinion of the 3rd category is of no particular interest to anyone. These are not subjects of world history, but objects of past, present or future expansion, with small-town interests and aspirations, fixated on satisfying momentary needs and adjusting their lifestyle to more powerful neighbors, hanging out between them...
But when those who did not even manage to create their own state, that is, did not go beyond tribal relations, dare to talk about the problems of the empire, this is perceived as impudence. Where is it seen that herbivores discussed the affairs of lions and especially how to butcher a carcass?
I have heard reproaches against the Russians for not wanting to learn the languages of the natives and for translating local names into Russian. But it's okay!
Where have you seen an Englishman who studies the language of the Hottentots, Bushmen, Gonds, a Frenchman studying Cochinchina dialects or a Spaniard who is seriously interested in the Aztec culture of human sacrifice? On the contrary, everyone organizes missions in which the natives learn the language and culture of the empire. Why should the Russians do otherwise?
It is for this reason that the phenomenon referred to in the internet as “hohlosrach” is a one-sided game. Nationally preoccupied representatives of the 4th category attack the imperial people with perseverance, worthy of a better use, seeing in this the meaning of life and even asceticism. At the same time, the attacked lazily recoil, perceiving no more entertainment in this, or trying to show their place to the presumptuous.
Unfortunately, this also made its way to the alternate history site. Therefore, I can’t help but share my observations, involuntarily turning to personalities:
Among us is the author Sergei-Lvov. He creates his own alternatives, the leitmotif of which is the groping for factors that would help the population of the right-bank Ukraine to rise from the fourth level to the third. Moreover, in an evolutionary way, through development and self-improvement. I have argued with Sergey more than once and will continue to argue, but the positive approach itself commands unconditional respect. Moreover, the level of understanding of international problems makes us suspect that he is a representative of a more high category than the one with which he relates himself. (I hope this will not be perceived by colleagues as flattery and an attempt to recruit him as an ally, or at least exclude him from the number of critics. I expect criticism from him in the amount of three of my materials).
There is another example - the notorious Wayfarer. He doesn't create anything. His righteous anger is based on other people's thoughts. He is not trying to elevate Ukraine of the 4th category to the Russian level. No, he is trying to lower the Russian people from the first position to the fourth, to trample into the dirt, innocently believing that by doing so he will equal him.
His behavior doesn't bother me. He is understandable and uninteresting to me. But he cannot understand why, when he speaks obvious platitudes about the Russian authorities and realities, we, representatives of the multinational imperial community, instead of applause and shouts of support for the truth-seeker, constantly minus him. Moreover, we are not minus his statements about, say, corruption, about which we know more than he does, but him personally, thereby demonstrating an attitude towards his attempts. And he will never understand it. Not that level.
Now let's discuss the questions that I asked at the beginning of the material.
- Is the empire always evil for the natives, is the metropolis always the oppressor?
South Africa is Africa's largest economy. Is it the merit of the Zulus? Or is it Burov?
The Aztecs stopped human sacrifice. Did they stop it themselves or did the Spaniards help?
After the entry of Bashkiria into Russia, the centuries-old civil strife of local princes stopped there. Who built factories and universities on the national outskirts of the empire, who gave writing to many peoples? The Kazakhs themselves with the Tungus?
What would have been in the place of the most powerful India today if the British had not united it? Two dozen squabbling tribes of the level of development of the Pashtuns. Who liquidated the strangler sect that instilled fear in medieval India?
What happened to the former colonies, from which the British and French left first, and then the Soviet Union? Show me who, besides the countries of the Persian Gulf, magically flourished, relying on their own strength?
- Why is the moral assessment of the empire based on the point of view of the colony? Why so one-sided?
But because, as already mentioned, the imperial peoples do not need it. Small and uninteresting. They just don't participate in the discussion.
But the former colonies really need it. For self-assertion. And not self-affirmation through self-improvement like India, but a petty lowering of the metropolis (the Wayfarer's version) to its cave level in order to look not so pathetic. And maybe even make money. So Brazil does not hesitate to take money from impoverished Portugal.
In general, the fact of the existence of the Russian Empire is not only not shameful, as our former brothers are trying to convince everyone, but it is an object of legitimate pride. And not only the Russian people, but all the peoples who jointly built great empire. As well as representatives of the peoples - carriers of the worldview of the imperial scale, by the will of fate who found themselves under the rule of the peoples - dwarfs.
What is an empire and how it differs from an ordinary state, we found out. Now let's figure out where, in fact, empires come from, what they are, what needs to be done to become an empire, what should not be done so as not to lose this status?
1. Birth of an empire
For clarity, let's consider an ideal scheme that is not tied to any of the existing states.
Let's assume that two peoples bearing classical names coexist: Blunt-pointed and Pointed.
It is clear that the contradictions between them are so great that peaceful coexistence is impossible.
Through numerous encounters, it turns out that Pointers, who use the more risky method of breaking shells, have more advanced knife techniques, which gives a tangible advantage in hand-to-hand combat.
As a result, the Pointers win and seize the lands of their neighbors.
If the war is waged by nomadic tribes, the outcome is clear - the losers are killed in order to free the nomadic tribes for their clans. But if both are settled, the logic of actions is more complicated. For settled people, land without a population that cultivates it is of no value. Even if they captured the subject of the conflict - controversial fishing or
mines, it may take several generations and hundreds of years of slow migration to settle the rest of the territory.
Therefore, after ritual robberies, arson, murders and rapes, the Dumb-ends either, according to the ancient Western European tradition (Rome), turn into slaves, or, according to the later Eastern European tradition (Rus), are taxed
tribute and are left in relative peace.
But this is not the end of the story. This is her beginning.
As it suddenly turns out, beyond the lands of the Dead Ends, an evil tribe of Vegetars is found, who fiercely hate everyone who prefers fried pork ribs to baked swede. It is obvious that even such contradictions can be eliminated only by means of war.
If the Pointers have turned the Dullpoints into slaves, they go into battle on their own. If they win, then Vegetars also become slaves. If they lose, the Vegetars enslave both the Pointy-Points and the Blunt-Points.
But if slavery wasn't cultivated and the Dumb Ends still represent a significant military force, they can be invited to participate in the campaign under the following conditions:
The surviving aristocracy of the Dead Ends is included in the nobility of the united country
All residents receive equal rights
Plunder of Vegetars is carried out by joint efforts on a parity basis.
Agree, such an army is stronger than the slave-owning one and the fate of the Vegetars is decided.
End? Unfortunately no. Beyond the lands of the Vegetars, the unimaginable begins. Goofyapy with Rukosuyami live there. And so for a very long time - centuries and millennia.
A logical question: Was it not possible for everyone to live peacefully, and controversial issues amicably resolved by diplomatic methods at international summits in fashionable taverns?
The logical answer: And thousands of years ago and today, on the example of Libya, we see: any nation, having acquired a more or less noticeable advantage over its neighbors, prefers to resolve issues by force. Negotiations are conducted only in cases where the outcome of a direct fight is not obvious to the parties. You can treat this as you like, but the fact remains: this is the law human society. To deny it is the same as to deny the law gravity.
Each nation, in a collision with a neighbor, makes an attempt to subdue it. If successful, then the core of the empire begins to crystallize in this place. Someone loses immediately, someone is content with little, and someone creates continental and intercontinental associations.
And if someone begins to say that his people are peaceful, prefer to achieve results by work, and communicate with neighbors exclusively respectfully, it is worth checking: perhaps this people was once cruelly broken in its ambitions, and the passionaries were exterminated.
I do not know a more striking example than the Czechs. In the 19th century, they were called "Pigeon people" for their meekness and peacefulness. But you should look at these meek in the era of the Hussite wars! How did the campaigns of the Taborites for neighboring peoples differ from the conquests of the Huns? Nothing. Unless the ideological pumping was more perfect.
But then, having lost all the passionate tours in the wars, the Czechs became quiet and sedate. Like oxen.
The Germans and the Japanese, by the way, after the last bloodletting, also subdued. And the Russians are no longer eager to fight like they were 50-100 years ago. Those who have not yet been seriously broken off are torn.
2. The logic of the development of the empire
Peoples start big wars not only because of their quarrelsome character. (Due to their nature, only predatory campaigns “for zipuns”). Often this is forced by various circumstances:
Climate change, when droughts drive the steppes to new places;
Overpopulation, when the country's resources are not enough to feed the population;
Lack of minerals, although this problem is well solved by trade;
Lack of access to communications, sea and land, limiting the development of the state, especially in comparison with prosperous neighbors who have such access.
But still, the key problem is the neighbors growing too fast, who, if not today, then tomorrow, due to the reasons stated above, or simply for the sake of a banal robbery, will certainly attack.
Considering that the troops gather for a long time, and the first one to mobilize gets a strategic advantage, this implies the logic of the development of the empire - subjugating the surrounding peoples in every possible way to move the threat away from the core of the country, giving yourself time to respond to a sudden attack. The borders are being extended either to natural geographical limits, or to the borders of a similar empire, with which it is still dangerous to fight and should be negotiated. But even in this case, the neighboring peoples and the borders with them are not considered not as something unshakable, but as an object of expansion postponed for a future period. Otherwise people don't know how. And they never learn. And if someone stopped there and pupated, intending to finally live in the world and fully enjoy the fruits of the exploits of their ancestors, sooner or later
received a powerful destructive force on the border.
Consider the Roman and Byzantine empires.
That is, the external expansion of the empire is not really a sign of particular cruelty and treachery of the titular nation, but an extensive way of self-defense by physically pushing back the threat. And the logic of the state, as you know, can differ significantly from the logic of a single individual.
Modern empires operate more subtle (progress after all). The threat is pushed aside by intensive methods, when the occupation of neighbors often goes unnoticed by the latter. But that is another topic.
3. Types of empires
If the state follows the Roman model, growing in colonies, it can swell incredibly. To swell to the point of losing control and acquiring so many enemies on the borders that the pampered slave owners will no longer have the strength to contain. Even if slavery pure form and canceled, there remain subservient territories, trying to overthrow the backbone people without thinking about the consequences. (Dark Ages after the collapse of the Roman Empire).
But if the path of consolidation of the elites of different peoples is chosen, the process of mutual assimilation begins. The process of assimilation of individual tribes first led to the emergence of the French, German, Russian peoples. Then other nationalities began to be included in the composition of the nations. So today they do not separate themselves from France
Burgundians, Gascons, Normans. The English do not divide themselves into Saxons, Jutes and Normans. Germany absorbed the Pomeranian Slavs, making them more German than the Germans themselves. The tribes of the Finno-Ugric peoples (Izhora, Muroma) completely joined the composition of the Russian people. How many the Chinese digested before they acquired their current mono-ethnicity - only the Buddha knows. These assimilated peoples became full-fledged imperial ones. Among their very distant ancestors, it is no longer possible to separate the conquerors from the conquered. But simply the ancestors themselves conquered other peoples for the glory of the common empire.
Empire type 1. National
A classic empire is one where the imperial people have more rights and full benefits. These are slaves for the plantation and household, a place in the colonial administration, army service, during which it is not forbidden to rob natives, high income population in general due to robbery
colonies, advantage in court, just the distribution of benefits.
As mentioned earlier, the imperial people act as Roman citizens, English Saibs and other white gentlemen, Blond beasts, etc.
Please note that the republican form of government and direct democratic elections in no way abolish slavery in its various forms.
Benefits of the scheme:
1. The imperial people develop faster than the colonies at the expense of the colonies, becoming an unattainable ideal and an object of imitation for the natives.
2. The metropolis becomes an industrial, scientific and political center, giving impetus to the development of civilization as a whole.
3. The imperial people are aware of the significance and source of their own
prosperity, united and fierce in upholding privileges. The stability of the state in conflicts is increasing. (imperial peoples often differ from their neighbors in increased combat capability)
4. Plundered colonies are not able to throw a real challenge to the mother country. Riots are effectively suppressed. (See item 3).
5. The metropolis forms a worldview that becomes dominant over a large area for centuries and millennia even after the disappearance of the empire and is associated with it.
The disadvantages of the scheme:
1. Having no competition, accustomed to disperse the rebels with sticks and believing in invincibility, the imperial people sooner or later relax, lose their fighting spirit, the will to win, readiness for self-sacrifice and are looking for an easier life.
2. This leads to an increase in the share of the colonial population (the development of which was previously deliberately blocked) in the administrative apparatus, which erodes its cohesion and lowers the quality of governance.
3. Admiration and imitation of the imperial people coexists with envy and hatred. Very often justified. There is always a reason to rebel.
4. The isolation of the colonies from the metropolis leads to the conservation of culture and beliefs. Sometimes very archaic, hindering progress even after gaining independence (shamanism and tribalism in Africa). This lowers the average level of empire development and does not allow quick and efficient mobilization of resources when needed.
5. At a critical moment for the empire, the conquered peoples may decide that their hour has come. Their uprisings are national in nature, accompanied by the massacre of the imperial people and the return to a pre-imperial, often hopelessly outdated existence.
Empire type 2. Aristocratic.
The publicist Pyotr Khomyakov in this case uses the term "bureaucratic". But I don't like this term. Bureaucracy is only a miserable semblance of aristocracy, and indeed it replaced the aristocracy some hundred years ago, while the history of aristocratic empires goes back hundreds of years. It's more of a current
the state of Russia, rather than a historical pattern.
If the titular imperial people, for whatever reason, refused to exterminate or enslave the vanquished, they may well go to include the surviving elite in their circle. Not instantly, but over time, this means that the elite merges into a single group, the defeated people in the next cycle already act as the imperial people, fully knowing all the benefits of the empire, and the winners are equalized in duties with the defeated.
Benefits of the scheme:
1. The absence of national oppression muffles ethnic strife, promotes mutual assimilation, interethnic marriages, blood renewal, and a decrease in the level of internal aggression.
2. There is a mutual penetration and enrichment of cultures. The result is a synergistic effect, a multifaceted culture that has absorbed the best that a single people can give to the world.
3. The development of backward peoples by an accelerated method through the introduction of a more perfect educational system and familiarization with the common scientific and cultural heritage is being pulled up to the advanced ones. The average level of the population levels off and rises sharply.
4. Over time, the best representatives of all peoples can take an equal and active part in the government of the country, the development of science and technology (the advantage is realized with a delay of several generations).
5. Protecting the empire from an external enemy is the business of every citizen, regardless of nationality. The mobilization resource of an empire of the 2nd type is much higher than that of the 1st.
The disadvantages of the scheme:
1. Persons whose scale of thinking does not correspond to the level of the empire can come to the highest power. The management of a huge state is slipping into solving small, momentary tasks. Global problems are not analyzed, inadequate reaction to them is not expected. The vision of the historical perspective is lost.
2. The local administrative apparatus is formed from representatives of local peoples, even if they are at different stages of development, which lowers the overall efficiency at the very beginning of the imperial cycle. (Starting loss compared to type 1 empire)
3. The local elite retains influence in their regions and is able to organize and lead a rebellion or sabotage if they consider it personally beneficial.
4. If there is no national oppression, the carrier of the imperial negative impact is the multinational elite. The population becomes an exploited mass. At the same time, the elite does not make a difference between nationalities and religions. Everyone is equal before them. But the peoples are equal among themselves in opposition to the elite. An example of this is the multinational Pugachev uprising and the Civil War of the 20th century. This makes the riots much more extensive and dangerous.
5. Since the backward peoples are rapidly being pulled up by the empire in terms of development level to the titular people, fear and admiration for higher beings is not fixed in the public consciousness. On the other hand, the illusion arises that the overwhelming success is the own merit of the national minority. Hence the flattering myth arises that they feed the center (by analogy with the type 1 empire), although the facts may indicate otherwise. An additional reason for separatism.
Convergence
As already mentioned, the national empire is the first and earliest type of empire that arose millennia ago. (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India). The aristocratic phenomenon is more recent. It is more characteristic of empires that have become such after the disappearance of the institution of slavery. New empires are formed immediately in this capacity. But any national empire, after a long time and as experience and wisdom are gained, begins to transform into an aristocratic one.
And Rome provides an example of this. Let's remember: at first, the entire population of Italy - Italica was a disenfranchised supplier of slaves. Hundreds of years of expansion of the empire were accompanied by a division into Roman citizens and others. But it happened for the time being. In the end, the frontiers of the empire expanded to such an extent that the Roman people proper were no longer able to defend the frontiers. And then foreigners began to receive the rights of Roman citizens - allies living thousands of kilometers away, who had never been in Rome either. True, they received rights and duties to preserve the empire. And at first it worked.
A similar example is the UK. Britain in the 18th century and the 20th century are very different. First of all, in terms of the rights and freedoms of the colonies. The pinnacle of convergence has been the current practice of multiculturalism. According to the idea, national elites are incorporated into the English proper, and ethnic
the British are equal in rights with foreigners.
Thus, one can deduce some general imperial dialectic:
The transformation of an early type 1 empire into a type 2 empire is a natural historical process.
In the course of the transformation of the empire, getting rid of old advantages and disadvantages, they acquire new advantages and disadvantages, solving old problems, but acquiring new ones.
Late empires immediately form as type 2 empires.
The formation of a late empire according to the 1st type is a dead end.
The last point deserves a special mention.
In the 20th century, we had two cases of attempting to form an empire of the 1st type - German and Japanese. This looks especially wild against the background of the classical French and English empires that began the process of transformation.
As a result, the newly appeared empires were forced to act with rude, outdated methods, which predetermined a sad end.
From this we can draw a logical conclusion:
Building a type 1 empire today is a historical mistake. Georgia has experienced this in an acute form. All the newly-minted independent states have similar problems, which are trying to build prosperity on the inequality of the peoples inhabiting them, that is, to become an imperial people themselves, jumping over several stages of development at once. At best, their destiny is a bummer, at worst, a collapse. But the reverse transformation of an empire from type 2 to type 1 will also be a mistake. You cannot step into the same water twice. But in the same feces (sorry for naturalism) you can repeatedly.
4. Imperial psychology
The logic of the empire's actions is inevitably reflected in the stereotype of thinking of the imperial peoples. The ancestors turned out to be stronger than the surrounding peoples, the grandfathers strengthened and developed the empire. Can't take that long. If an empire arose due to a combination of circumstances or the genius of a leader, it exists for a maximum generation (Alexander the Great, Attila). This is really a mistake of nature and such people are not imperial, but just a successful conqueror. Perhaps only once in its history. But if the empire exists for centuries, therefore, the imperial population is higher than the conquered peoples in a number of key indicators, and this is objective, no matter how the neighbors try to prove the opposite. And this superiority has been cultivated, consolidated and expanded for centuries.
The victims of the empire have completely different stereotypes and logic of behavior. At a minimum, this is a survival instinct, thanks to which their ancestors survived - to hide, sit out, wait out. Then wait, suddenly the empire weakens in order to go over to a stronger one. Hence envy, pettiness, inferiority complex. And the more acute, the lower the level at which the defeated peoples stand. For a higher level of thinking, society must mature. Possession of a mobile phone or a machine gun not made by you does not make the owner equal in intelligence to the creator. Just as the independence won does not endow the winners with state talents. The example of Africa is more than convincing.
The old countries of the 3rd level do not have such trouble. They have already gone mad, matured, gained wisdom, thanks to this they have managed to survive and take their place in the world.
Sometimes a very decent place. And they don't try to become empires, na genetic level remembering how these attempts turned out in the past. But those peoples who in their civilizational development have not left their childhood are trying.
5. The collapse of the empire
As we can all see in Paris and London, the transformation did not solve old problems, but added new ones. Multiculturalism failed. It makes no sense to describe the problems - everyone knows.
Yes, these countries are no longer formally empires, but empires in essence. Just shrunk. From their former greatness, they inherited, firstly, the highest standards of life, and secondly, the population of the colonies. If at first Europe went to the colonies, now the colonies have come to Europe. The transformation is still complete. These two countries acquired the same appearance and the same problems that the USSR had at the time of its decline. But Russia has the same problems, because it is a crumpled USSR.
And it doesn't matter that in the pre-imperial period Europe had a more homogeneous population than the multinational Principality of Moscow.
The question arises: what is it? A trend of the times and social progress or a historical pattern?
According to historians, this has already happened. Where? In Rome.
Consider late Rome. As already mentioned, Rome began the transformation into the 2nd type of empire, distributing citizenship left and right. According to some reports, such relaxation was accompanied by mass immigration to the Apennine peninsula.
migrants from Syria. This information can be verified with a haplotype:
Asia Minor Haplotypes J1 and J2 are common in the south of the country and are found: In Central Italy, 21.5% of the population, South - 28.5%, Sicily 30.5%. By the way, 89% of Ingush and 57% of Chechens have J2. That is, they are practically Italians. If they were the descendants of slaves, they would be evenly distributed throughout Italy.
But in the north and in Sardinia they are 2-2.5 times less. It is known that the industrial and rich North of Italy differs from the poor South. But, the North (Milan, Turin) is Cisalpine Gaul. The rest of the population is heavily diluted with the Asia Minor element, which today would refer to Muslims.
It turns out that what we see today in Europe one to one happened in the Roman Empire.
The sequence of events is built like this:
1. National empire;
2. Stop expansion;
3. Awareness of the need to transform into an aristocratic empire;
4. Equalization of the population of the colonies in rights with the mother country;
5. Decrease in the quality of the empire due to reasons characteristic of the empire of the 2nd type;
6. The collapse of the empire;
7. The appearance in the metropolis of a significant number of foreigners who received equal rights with the local population and are attracted by the continuing high standard of living;
8. Decline in the quality of the metropolis itself;
9. Disintegration of the metropolis;
10. Conquest by neighbors;
11. The reunification of a single state in the form of a pale shadow of its former greatness.
In Italy, this path took 2,500 years. Of these: Stage 1 - 500 years, 2-7 - 500 years, 8-10 - 1500 years. (numbers are very approximate).
Modern empires arose later, when the pace of life accelerated. Therefore, the processes developed more rapidly.
Today, the former metropolises are in the 7th stage.
It turns out that if everything develops in a complete analogy, there will be not only the collapse of Russia, but also of England and France, where the Muslim population will create their own state associations. What will happen next - I do not know.
Can an apocalyptic scenario be prevented? It is logical to assume that both Europe and Russia should have similar recipes for getting out of this situation.
Which? Perhaps very non-trivial solutions are required.
But this is a topic for a separate discussion.
The very concept of "empire" (Imperium) came from the Romans, who so called the reflection of the highest state power that belonged to the people, in the powers of kings first, then senior magistrates, that is, consuls, praetors, dictators, proconsuls, propraetors, prefect of the city and praetorian, censors . The junior magistrates of the empire did not. The empire of the magistrate, depending on its type, gave broad military and civil powers. Highest Degree empire was given in the republic only to the dictator Melekhin A.V. Theory of State and Law: Textbook. - M: Market DS, 2007. - S. 78. . Over time, the meaning of the concept of "empire" has changed, so they began to call the territory, which is subject to the powers associated with this power.
In science, there are difficulties in defining the concept of "empire". For example, in the thirty-year-old Encyclopedia Britannica, the corresponding dictionary entry listed the great empires. The encyclopedia refused a general definition. In recent decades, the phenomenon of empire has become the subject of independent research. Scientists working in this area talk about the emergence of a special discipline - imperiology. However, the problem of a generally valid definition of this concept has not been solved so far. The point is that empire is a complex phenomenon. It has both a subjectively internal and an objective external dimension. The same is true of the concept of "freedom". On the one hand, freedom is understood as some characteristic of the human personality that describes the spiritual dimension of a person. On the other hand, freedom has external dimensions, it is understood as a legal and socially determined essence.
Something similar happens with the concept of "empire". In the most general sense, an empire is defined as a large multinational, or rather, a multi-ethnic state, which arose as a result of military expansion and united by a strong centralized authoritarian power Grachev N.I. State structure and sovereignty in modern world: questions of theory and practice. Volgograd, 2009. - S. 134. .
V.A. Inozemtsev defines an empire as political system, which is distinguished primarily by a rigid distinction between the center and the periphery, as well as a clear understanding of domination and subordination, that is, the center and dependent territories Inozemtsev V.A. Globalization: Illusions and Reality // Free Thought. - 2009. - No. 1. - S. 27. .
In political science, empire represents one of the historical forms of monarchical states. The concept of imperial power was interpreted as the concentration of state sovereignty, "higher" political unity. Imperial policy was associated with high centralization of power in large states, independent of any external political influence Political Science for Lawyers / Ed. N.I. Matuzova, A.V. Malko. - M.: Lawyer, 2009. - S. 112. .
But these are external definitions. The ideologists of the empire defend the spiritual, or rather ideological, essence of the empire. If we take out the empires of antiquity (Assyrian, Persian, Roman at the first stage of its existence), then, starting from the era of monotheistic religions, the empire is the Idea of Riber A. Comparing continental empires // Russian Empire in a comparative perspective. Sat. articles / Ed. A.I. Miller. M., 2007. - S. 34. .
An empire arises at the moment when large masses of people believe in some idea that claims the status of universal truth and decide to create a righteous and just society. And then they carry this idea to the ends of the universe, imposing it on all those who are still in the inertia of ignorance. The idea of a universal empire is conceived by its adherents as a worldwide one. The purpose of the empire is the communion of peoples, the salvation of the souls of subjects. In the 4th century, in the era between the emperors Constantine and Theodosius, the Roman Empire, as a power model of integration based only on the strength and blessings of civilization, became engaged to the Idea. Since then, a history of universal empires has been unfolding. Byzantium was the universal empire. According to this model, the Caliphate, the Habsburg empires, Muscovy, and the USSR were built.
Empires were called the Roman state (30 BC - 395), later - the Western Roman Empire (395-476) and Byzantium (395-1453), the Frankish state (starting with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800), Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (962-1806).
Russia was called an empire from 1721 to 1917, France - in 1804-1814, in 1815 and in 1852-1870, Austria - from 1804 (from 1868 - Austria-Hungary) to 1918, Germany - from 1871 to 1918.
The empires were Mexico in 1821-1822 and in 1863-1867, Brazil in 1822-1889. In 1804-1806. styled himself emperor of the monarch of Haiti.
In 1858, after the abolition of the Mughal Empire, which formally existed in India, the title of emperor was transferred to English king Great Britain became known as the British Empire. In terms of form of government, empires were Ottoman Turkey before the revolution of 1922, China - before the revolution of 1912, Korea from 1897 until its annexation to Japan in 1910. Japan is still an empire.
In addition to traditional empires, there is another class of empires - colonial empires. They were created by normal bourgeois nations. Colonial empire is a political enterprise involving the collective exploitation of colonial territories in the interests of the nation that created such an empire. One of the distinguishing features of colonial empires is the territorial separation of the colonies and the mother country. Colonial empires were created by Holland, England, France. There are more complex cases, say, Spain and Portugal. These were completely medieval states that created traditional empires, which were inspired by the principle of religious truth. In Spain and Portugal, nations began to form only in the twilight of the empire. The classical colonial empires formed their own mythology, spoke of the "white man's burden", which brings the blessings of civilization to the conquered peoples. But all these constructions cannot be compared with the ideological complexes of universal empires.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, most of the territory the globe and most of its population lived within the imperial borders. Over the course of a century, traditional empires crumbled, colonial empires crumbled.
So the empires come forward state entities, distinctive features which are an extensive territorial basis, a strong centralized authority, asymmetric relations of domination and subordination between the center and the periphery, a heterogeneous ethnic and cultural composition of the population. Empires (for example, Roman, British, Russian) existed in various historical eras.
empire form state power
