Ever notice how as soon as an Empire reaches the pinacle of its power, it doesn't stay there for long? It either ends up being conquered by another rival kingdom, or it just starts slowly but surely falling apart. A good example is the Roman Empire. For almost 3 centuries it dominated the Mediterranean, much of western Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Then, it quickly lost power. Its fall was brought about by increasing expenditures, lack of patriotism among the soldiers, increasing raids by Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Huns, and increasingly inept emperors. The city of Rome was sacked several times before the Empire finally capitulated.
So why does this seem to happen to almost all the empires that have sprung up over the centuries? (A notable exception to this is the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the end of WWI)
Love is a very powerful force, especially when its formed into a coherent beam of death.
Shadow Stalker said this in post #1 : Ever notice how as soon as an Empire reaches the pinacle of its power, it doesn't stay there for long? It either ends up being conquered by another rival kingdom, or it just starts slowly but surely falling apart. A good example is the Roman Empire. For almost 3 centuries it dominated the Mediterranean, much of western Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Then, it quickly lost power. Its fall was brought about by increasing expenditures, lack of patriotism among the soldiers, increasing raids by Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Huns, and increasingly inept emperors. The city of Rome was sacked several times before the Empire finally capitulated.
So why does this seem to happen to almost all the empires that have sprung up over the centuries? (A notable exception to this is the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the end of WWI)
My theory is God blesses countries who are of by and large of moral charecteristics. As the country gets more evil the less they are blessed. This I know will get a lot of hisses but this is my theory on it.
Hmmm...interesting theory. It also makes sense. Empires tend to fall when they're morals start going away. This doesn't apply to all empires, but by and large, its a fairly constant trend.
Love is a very powerful force, especially when its formed into a coherent beam of death.
I'm not sure I agree with that many empires seem to reach their greatest glory in the middle with a Resplendant
Emperer, Sulieman the Magnificent , Haroon Al Rashid Queen Victoria etc......
You should remember that the Roman Empire, continued up to the 15 th Century based In Cnstantinople long after its Glory days.
And as for morals ..... the British and the Romans, initially thought a good Empire didn't exist and wanted only a mercantile Empire with bases for them to excert their ....influence, their Empires were both started by dispatched Generals locally, concerned as much by securing their wealth and power as the interests of the nation at home.
I might suggest that the British and Roman dream of Empire has finally been achieved.... by America.
+Most people demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." -Soren Kierkegaaard.
I wonder..... Is America considered an empire? If yes are we on the way up or on the way down? If no what makes us different? Interesting thought.
"A child is a highly inteligent human being-- sensitive, humorus, open minded, eager to learn, full of excitement, energy and curiosity about the world in which he lives. Lucky is the adult who manages to carry these same characteristics into adult life. It usually makes for a happy and successful individual."
---Walt Disney
An "empire" requires an emperor. No, America is not an empire. Unless you look at the U.S. as "THE EMPIRE" (ala Darth Vader) in which case an argument might be made, but even THE empire had an Emperor, also a no good sunuvagun.
The span of the Roman empire within the last 500 years is of significant interest to me though because this was the time during which Europeans were just taking a foothold in the New World; believe it or not the Roman Empire, though they claimed to dominate the entire planet, also specifically called out that they were the rulers of the New World identified by Amerigo Vespuci. This makes me wonder what the extent of influence of the Roman Empire was on the early formative days of the U.S. and how far, if at all, that influence reaches into the lives of Americans today.
Well we all know alot of our system of democracy is derived from ancient Greece and Rome also adopted alot of its politcal structure from them. If you want to look at Roman influence I would say that what destroyed the Roman empire from within is almost exactly what is destroying us. They allowed, or brought in, alot of foreign labor because they did not want to do the 'dirty' work. Those cultures would then influence the society and at the end of their reign Rome no longer had an army who cared, a politcal system so corrupt that no one believed or trusted anyone else, and a monetary system based on foreign labor and foreign goods.
Now I'm not saying that foreign labor is wrong it's just that instead of them assimulating into the Roman culture they tried to change the Roman culture into theirs. At the end Rome died from the inside out. I'm afraid thats the influence we have with us today." Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it " I think is the old saying.
"A child is a highly inteligent human being-- sensitive, humorus, open minded, eager to learn, full of excitement, energy and curiosity about the world in which he lives. Lucky is the adult who manages to carry these same characteristics into adult life. It usually makes for a happy and successful individual."
---Walt Disney
Does an empuire need an Emperor the CEO of the British empire in its final yrears was the elected Priome Minister. France was an Empire (Vietnam and Algeria) when it was a republic. Athens was building an Empire under a mayor and rome started its Empire under consoles (or is that consuls)
+Most people demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." -Soren Kierkegaaard.
My theory is God blesses countries who are of by and large of moral charecteristics. As the country gets more evil the less they are blessed. This I know will get a lot of hisses but this is my theory on it.
I have to dissagree with you on this point. The British Empire was never of 'Large moral Charecteristics'. They looked down upon their Empire and destroyed a large amount of the native ways of life for those countries.
The British Empire got better as it came towards its end. We were never defeated nor did we loose the Empire.
We gave it back.
Dominace over the world comes from military strength and in a world that's surface is mostly water the country that rules the waves rules the world.
And there is no country in all of history that has a greater Naval prowess or dedication than Britain.
"Rule Britania! Britannia rules the waves! Britain never, never, never shall be slaves!"
"there's only one way to win a war: shout, shout, and shout again!" - The Duke of Wellington ((Blackadder - Stephen Fry))
I whole-heartedly believe that Bonnie Prince Charlie is one of the people mainly responsible for the rise of the British Empire.
If he hadn't joined all the Highland clans together in his own greedy quest for power then they would still be living in the Highlands in their own way of life today.
It was his decision to fight at Culloden, a battlefield that favored the English, that was the downfall of his Army. With the warrior Highlanders in the British army the Empire expanded to become the most powerful the world had ever seen.
Who did the English send when their empire was in trouble? Their Navy and the Scots. More often than not the Highland battalions were the saving grace of the British empire.
"there's only one way to win a war: shout, shout, and shout again!" - The Duke of Wellington ((Blackadder - Stephen Fry))
05-20-2004 08:58 PM
