Very nice explanation, is very concerning China too, as country China is a peculiar form of Nation State based on Han genealogy, rulers usually could be of different lineage (as Mongolian of Yuan dynasty) still the Confucian Han still come back and set the rules. Today, the limit of a "global Chinese empire" can be traced on your reasoning!
Empire have a founding on something that is universally valuable to humans, Roma empire was all about Lex, streets and building (streets, baths and aqueducts principally), the next European empire to shine was the Spanish one(Spain-Portugal) with oceanic navigation and global commercial routes, next in line was French one with science and Enlightenment (base of mechanization), the next step is the English empire with steam and railroads followed by duopoly of the USA and URSS with air travel, electrification and telecommunication. The common offer of all empires is a form of PAX, the might to subdue and pacify, is a necessary but not sufficient element: we had a Mongol Empire to testify it, could subdue and pacify almost all continental Asia still had to import culture, tech and lifestyle (they got to be the Yuan dynasty) and acted as a roaming army waiting a sufficient strong enemy to stop them, barbarians as defined by any other self-respecting empire or nation state even if very succesfull ones.
All the vassals of empire keep deep-rooted in themselves the "gift" of the previous rulers a build from it, this explains why the "Imperial Eagle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Imperial_Eagle) is both on the USA and URSS/Russian official symbology, they have the same roots! Today seems that the "west" is more or less conceived as the descendant of Roman's axiom, it extends quite well to Russia and South America, the advantage of this inheritance is a peculiar openness to integrate and a disposition to rule by Lex. Emerging powers today seems more a kind of Nation States "big enough" but that are struggling with internal contradictions to become next global power, China have to drop his ethnic and Confucian expectations and India have to drop all his caste system, without this step we will always see the people of these giants to dream to come under Aquila rule for a better life.
Today we have probably reached a tech syngularity, the drop in fertility rate is so universal that his origin must be transversal and systemic and only technology is so pervasive, diffuse and all encompassing. Empires and Nation States probably are collapsing into something that is behoind the next event orizon, this could explain why both are failing, what we need is not in the past that had exausted his possibilityes but we didn't have now a concept for it so no words or mental hinstruments to undersatand what is coming...
I don't think "panem" was a strength or a matter of real interest for Rome, Roman Empire didn't produce so much in agricultural infrastructure, no irrigation channels, no reclamation of wetlands, no innovations on crops or alteration in agricultural methods.
Rome was feed from grain of Egypt, this also explain why the Eastern Roman Empire was the wealthiest one: eastern regions of Mediterranean Sea are arid but have a lot of history in agricultural infrastructure production and use, arid climate and irrigation is the best for grains production.
Nation States are a bit better to work on "panem" because usually didn't opt to outsource his production, they have to work within their limits. During WW1 and WW2, Germany had to invent quite a lot to keep his war machine running, nitrates, oil, food, rubber, construction materials and so had to be produced from viable resources, Allies got them from a lot of different sources ready to use.
As you can see the Nation States that i mentioned in my previous comments are competing exactly in the "extended panem" (production) arena, they are good as factory states. What they lack is in completing the circle, Marx idealized it as Goods - Money - Goods, they MAKE (Goods) but other have to BUY (Money) and themselves they didn't buy so much of finished goods (Goods). As Merchantilistic States they are strong in production and could "make money" quite good but are quite dependent on buyer, the system substantially "export poverity" from Merchant States" to buyers until they become insolvent and both collapse.
USA empire dodged it with the Ford system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism) becoming the first "integral empire", an empire that combine the best of Nation States and Empires, but this too is going to crumble as anything human: any empire picture himselve as eternal because corrected the mistake of the previous ones, in reality correcting old mistakes only show the unsolved ones that the emperial system is unfit to solve.
What about the augsburg's empire( that became the austro-hungaran empire)? It was a multhietnic empire (germans, italians, hungarians, slavic people) and nontheless the elites were speaking german and not an external language, so it seems to be a counter example. It is true that it had reknowed enlighted leaders (think about Maria Teresa d'Austria). Maybe this fact permitted unity? Or for a long time was the empire on the border of europe and was a dam against the turks and this fact was the reason? In any case it was clearly suffering from minority claims, think about the infamous Sarajevo attack.
I remember a thing someone told me when I visited Sarajevo as a turist, not long ago: the city was electrified before Vienna. The elites wanted to be sure electricity was not dangerous for human health and they made a test in the Balkan city. I think this is a hint of how empires works even when they intend to be benevolent...
"An empire can survive only as long as it can guarantee the survival of its minority groups; something that an independent central power can often do. A nation-state, instead, is a natural born killer of minorities. Simply, it has no mechanisms to protect them from the whims of the majority."
Unless it is the other way around. An empire is a political and territorial entity which protects the cultural identity of its minority groups as long as they accept its hegemony. And it needs to stop protecting them to, somehow, transform itself in nation state. Thus France would be an empire if its various minorities (Bretons, Picards, Basques, Auvergnats, etc) hadn't been "frenchified" by the Third Republic.
-
"The President of Russia is supposed to guarantee the security of all the citizens of the Federation."
But also of all the Russian citizen who ended up on the wrong side of the actual frontiers of the federation after the demise of the USSR. The tsar was Tsar of All the Russias. And then one can also understand the Russian intervention into Ukraine. And why, from a political point of view and despite an 8 year delay, it was almost unavoidable after the uprising in the Russian speaking regions following the nationalist coup in 2014 in Kiev. And you can bet whoever wanted this war knew it.
-
"The Current European Empire (the EU) is ruled by an opaque elite of people who speak to each other in English"
Indeed. This confirms the whole demonstration. But it doesn't prevent this elite to try to make a nation-state out of the European Empire by weakening the various nation-states that make it up in every way possible.
And to answer your penultimate question, empires cannot function as liberal democracies. To guarantee the empire's stability, power needs to stay in the hand of the central political entity.
So at best, they can only be illiberal democracies. That is democracies where the leaders are dully elected by the majority but are unable and/or unwilling to fully protect the minorities' rights the way liberal democracies would do.
I have a background in Classics, and a quick question related to one thing you wrote: "...why did the Imperial Roman elites in the West start speaking Greek from the 2nd century AD onward?" My impression is that, even well before the 2nd century AD, well-educated, "elite" Romans were often bilingual. You imply, though, that they spoke Greek instead of using Latin, rather than in addition to Latin. I didn't know that this happened, other than Marcus Aurelius writing his Meditations in Greek. Where can I learn more about the idea of the Roman elites preferring Greek to Latin? Thanks!
Good question. I simplified when said, "from the second century onward," and you are right that Geek was being spoken and used in the Western Empire already during the 1st century AD, and perhaps earlier. Just think of the Gospels. But we don't have statistics about who exactly was speaking Greek and who was speaking Latin during the period of decline of the Western Empire. We can only guess from the texts that remained to us, and they show a certain tendency to move toward Greek while abandoning Latin. But we don't have an equivalent of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" telling us what language the Roman Nobles spoke to each other. Then, I not specifically expert in this matter.
It would be interesting to further these thoughts with the imperial style 'multiculturism' being implemented in western countries, from France to Germany. The high numbers of 'foreign' ethnic enclaves in Great Britain for example, makes imperial style rule near obligatory and now renders 'national' democracy all but impossible. Of note as well, the new 'imperial' British custom of the last decade to elevate 'foreign' elements to the highest echelons of power (Prime Minister...etc.). EU elites already use English even inside their families, sending their children to US/GB universities. When the French president begins to use English for his 'national' interventions, we will know the transformation is complete.
(in Ethiopia, though they never had the time or resources, the plan was to make it into a settler country. While a kind of apartheid was implemented in Asmara and Addis Ababa, with indigenous and Italian neighbourhoods, it was on a small scall. The grand colonial settler town, planned by Le Corbusier never saw the light of day)
I was thinking exactly the same things, but I didn't include the point about the current situation in Europe to avoid making the post too long. The transformation is ongoing; to add to your considerations, note that the Europeans are in a condition of demographic collapse and that's going to have consequences, although we do not know exactly which ones.
About Ethiopia, I didn't know that Le Corbusier had designed a huge colonial settler town. Amazing story -- fortunately it was never done! From the literature of the time, I think Italians didn't really know what to do with their brand new empire. The only "model" they could think of was that of the Roman Empire, with the difference that the ancient Romans never were racist. I think that, given enough time, there was a definite possibility that they would have implemented a "final solution," Nazi style. Again, fortunately there was no time nor resources for that.
Whatever the plans of their leaders may have been, the Italians were never shy when it came to mingling in the Horn of Africa... Famously, Haile Selassie, upon his return to liberated Ethiopia, asked any Italians present to remain in the country. Many did just that, and you can still meet their descendants today, for example in the Club La Juventus, in Addis Ababa. These Italo-Ethiopians held sway in printing, automobiles, engineering and road construction for many decades after the World War II (mechanics still mostly use Italian words in Ethiopia for car parts and tools, whatever their first language may be, to this day.)
what is demographic collapse ?
Do you have children, Aaron? That's it.
no ugo i am single
Exactly
So perhaps the big political divide is between those who want to live in a nation state and those who want to be part of an empire.
One of the many ways to understand political attitudes
Very nice explanation, is very concerning China too, as country China is a peculiar form of Nation State based on Han genealogy, rulers usually could be of different lineage (as Mongolian of Yuan dynasty) still the Confucian Han still come back and set the rules. Today, the limit of a "global Chinese empire" can be traced on your reasoning!
Empire have a founding on something that is universally valuable to humans, Roma empire was all about Lex, streets and building (streets, baths and aqueducts principally), the next European empire to shine was the Spanish one(Spain-Portugal) with oceanic navigation and global commercial routes, next in line was French one with science and Enlightenment (base of mechanization), the next step is the English empire with steam and railroads followed by duopoly of the USA and URSS with air travel, electrification and telecommunication. The common offer of all empires is a form of PAX, the might to subdue and pacify, is a necessary but not sufficient element: we had a Mongol Empire to testify it, could subdue and pacify almost all continental Asia still had to import culture, tech and lifestyle (they got to be the Yuan dynasty) and acted as a roaming army waiting a sufficient strong enemy to stop them, barbarians as defined by any other self-respecting empire or nation state even if very succesfull ones.
All the vassals of empire keep deep-rooted in themselves the "gift" of the previous rulers a build from it, this explains why the "Imperial Eagle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Imperial_Eagle) is both on the USA and URSS/Russian official symbology, they have the same roots! Today seems that the "west" is more or less conceived as the descendant of Roman's axiom, it extends quite well to Russia and South America, the advantage of this inheritance is a peculiar openness to integrate and a disposition to rule by Lex. Emerging powers today seems more a kind of Nation States "big enough" but that are struggling with internal contradictions to become next global power, China have to drop his ethnic and Confucian expectations and India have to drop all his caste system, without this step we will always see the people of these giants to dream to come under Aquila rule for a better life.
Today we have probably reached a tech syngularity, the drop in fertility rate is so universal that his origin must be transversal and systemic and only technology is so pervasive, diffuse and all encompassing. Empires and Nation States probably are collapsing into something that is behoind the next event orizon, this could explain why both are failing, what we need is not in the past that had exausted his possibilityes but we didn't have now a concept for it so no words or mental hinstruments to undersatand what is coming...
The Rp,am e,èore was also very much about dole ("panem")
I don't think "panem" was a strength or a matter of real interest for Rome, Roman Empire didn't produce so much in agricultural infrastructure, no irrigation channels, no reclamation of wetlands, no innovations on crops or alteration in agricultural methods.
Rome was feed from grain of Egypt, this also explain why the Eastern Roman Empire was the wealthiest one: eastern regions of Mediterranean Sea are arid but have a lot of history in agricultural infrastructure production and use, arid climate and irrigation is the best for grains production.
Nation States are a bit better to work on "panem" because usually didn't opt to outsource his production, they have to work within their limits. During WW1 and WW2, Germany had to invent quite a lot to keep his war machine running, nitrates, oil, food, rubber, construction materials and so had to be produced from viable resources, Allies got them from a lot of different sources ready to use.
As you can see the Nation States that i mentioned in my previous comments are competing exactly in the "extended panem" (production) arena, they are good as factory states. What they lack is in completing the circle, Marx idealized it as Goods - Money - Goods, they MAKE (Goods) but other have to BUY (Money) and themselves they didn't buy so much of finished goods (Goods). As Merchantilistic States they are strong in production and could "make money" quite good but are quite dependent on buyer, the system substantially "export poverity" from Merchant States" to buyers until they become insolvent and both collapse.
USA empire dodged it with the Ford system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism) becoming the first "integral empire", an empire that combine the best of Nation States and Empires, but this too is going to crumble as anything human: any empire picture himselve as eternal because corrected the mistake of the previous ones, in reality correcting old mistakes only show the unsolved ones that the emperial system is unfit to solve.
What about the augsburg's empire( that became the austro-hungaran empire)? It was a multhietnic empire (germans, italians, hungarians, slavic people) and nontheless the elites were speaking german and not an external language, so it seems to be a counter example. It is true that it had reknowed enlighted leaders (think about Maria Teresa d'Austria). Maybe this fact permitted unity? Or for a long time was the empire on the border of europe and was a dam against the turks and this fact was the reason? In any case it was clearly suffering from minority claims, think about the infamous Sarajevo attack.
I remember a thing someone told me when I visited Sarajevo as a turist, not long ago: the city was electrified before Vienna. The elites wanted to be sure electricity was not dangerous for human health and they made a test in the Balkan city. I think this is a hint of how empires works even when they intend to be benevolent...
Very thoughtful post.
I would just add a couple of comments.
"An empire can survive only as long as it can guarantee the survival of its minority groups; something that an independent central power can often do. A nation-state, instead, is a natural born killer of minorities. Simply, it has no mechanisms to protect them from the whims of the majority."
Unless it is the other way around. An empire is a political and territorial entity which protects the cultural identity of its minority groups as long as they accept its hegemony. And it needs to stop protecting them to, somehow, transform itself in nation state. Thus France would be an empire if its various minorities (Bretons, Picards, Basques, Auvergnats, etc) hadn't been "frenchified" by the Third Republic.
-
"The President of Russia is supposed to guarantee the security of all the citizens of the Federation."
But also of all the Russian citizen who ended up on the wrong side of the actual frontiers of the federation after the demise of the USSR. The tsar was Tsar of All the Russias. And then one can also understand the Russian intervention into Ukraine. And why, from a political point of view and despite an 8 year delay, it was almost unavoidable after the uprising in the Russian speaking regions following the nationalist coup in 2014 in Kiev. And you can bet whoever wanted this war knew it.
-
"The Current European Empire (the EU) is ruled by an opaque elite of people who speak to each other in English"
Indeed. This confirms the whole demonstration. But it doesn't prevent this elite to try to make a nation-state out of the European Empire by weakening the various nation-states that make it up in every way possible.
PS :
And to answer your penultimate question, empires cannot function as liberal democracies. To guarantee the empire's stability, power needs to stay in the hand of the central political entity.
So at best, they can only be illiberal democracies. That is democracies where the leaders are dully elected by the majority but are unable and/or unwilling to fully protect the minorities' rights the way liberal democracies would do.
And there is probably some paradox here...
Hi Ugo,
I have a background in Classics, and a quick question related to one thing you wrote: "...why did the Imperial Roman elites in the West start speaking Greek from the 2nd century AD onward?" My impression is that, even well before the 2nd century AD, well-educated, "elite" Romans were often bilingual. You imply, though, that they spoke Greek instead of using Latin, rather than in addition to Latin. I didn't know that this happened, other than Marcus Aurelius writing his Meditations in Greek. Where can I learn more about the idea of the Roman elites preferring Greek to Latin? Thanks!
Good question. I simplified when said, "from the second century onward," and you are right that Geek was being spoken and used in the Western Empire already during the 1st century AD, and perhaps earlier. Just think of the Gospels. But we don't have statistics about who exactly was speaking Greek and who was speaking Latin during the period of decline of the Western Empire. We can only guess from the texts that remained to us, and they show a certain tendency to move toward Greek while abandoning Latin. But we don't have an equivalent of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" telling us what language the Roman Nobles spoke to each other. Then, I not specifically expert in this matter.
Hi Ugo,
It would be interesting to further these thoughts with the imperial style 'multiculturism' being implemented in western countries, from France to Germany. The high numbers of 'foreign' ethnic enclaves in Great Britain for example, makes imperial style rule near obligatory and now renders 'national' democracy all but impossible. Of note as well, the new 'imperial' British custom of the last decade to elevate 'foreign' elements to the highest echelons of power (Prime Minister...etc.). EU elites already use English even inside their families, sending their children to US/GB universities. When the French president begins to use English for his 'national' interventions, we will know the transformation is complete.
(in Ethiopia, though they never had the time or resources, the plan was to make it into a settler country. While a kind of apartheid was implemented in Asmara and Addis Ababa, with indigenous and Italian neighbourhoods, it was on a small scall. The grand colonial settler town, planned by Le Corbusier never saw the light of day)
I was thinking exactly the same things, but I didn't include the point about the current situation in Europe to avoid making the post too long. The transformation is ongoing; to add to your considerations, note that the Europeans are in a condition of demographic collapse and that's going to have consequences, although we do not know exactly which ones.
About Ethiopia, I didn't know that Le Corbusier had designed a huge colonial settler town. Amazing story -- fortunately it was never done! From the literature of the time, I think Italians didn't really know what to do with their brand new empire. The only "model" they could think of was that of the Roman Empire, with the difference that the ancient Romans never were racist. I think that, given enough time, there was a definite possibility that they would have implemented a "final solution," Nazi style. Again, fortunately there was no time nor resources for that.
Le Corbusier's plans for a 'new' (new = Addis!) Addis Ababa :
https://architexturez.net/doc/10-4995/lc2015-2015-838
Whatever the plans of their leaders may have been, the Italians were never shy when it came to mingling in the Horn of Africa... Famously, Haile Selassie, upon his return to liberated Ethiopia, asked any Italians present to remain in the country. Many did just that, and you can still meet their descendants today, for example in the Club La Juventus, in Addis Ababa. These Italo-Ethiopians held sway in printing, automobiles, engineering and road construction for many decades after the World War II (mechanics still mostly use Italian words in Ethiopia for car parts and tools, whatever their first language may be, to this day.)
Really interesting, I have not come across that analysis of Nation state and Empire. Which raises the question …what do we want instead ?
Especially as the whole question of governance is under investigation, with new and old ideas very welcome.