Jump to content

Talk:Empire/Archive 2

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

Do Empires need an Emperor per se?

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

France was not a monarchy under anyone named Napoleon (take your pick). A proper monarchy differs from an empire in that the crown does not have absolute power; he/she shares it with the nobility. Following the rise of absolutism (late Middle Ages/ early modernity), those rulers are properly called emperors/empresses regardless of whether or not they call themselves king/queen. The US is not an empire (regardless of hegemonic status) because power is shared between an elected president and a bicameral legislature. Some opponents of the US try to stick that 'empire' label on to criticize US foreign policy, but the form of government is based on the domestic power relationships. The term 'Imperial Presidency' is one of these labels used for political commentary. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Since when has "monarchy" meant the soverign is not absolute? Since when has "empire/emperor" meant the sovereign iss absolute? By that reasoning, the Roman Empire wasn't an empire much of the time. Iapetus (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Since when? About AD 1535. Absolutism is essentially a dictatorship. How could you have something other than an emperor/empress leading a political entity called an empire? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I'm still not sure of the source of the claim that "monarchy" means "not an absolute ruler" (what about Absolute monarchy?) and "empire" means "Absolute ruler". (Indeed, "absolute ruler" was I think the original definition of "monarch", and there have been plenty of emperors and empresses who have had to share power with nobles and/or parliament,e.g. those of Britain and Japan).
Anyway, to address the other points: originally "empire" meant "monarchy whose sovereign used the title "Emperor", and originally this specifically meant Rome. Emperor (or Imperator) was the title of the Roman rule, and after the fall of Rome, various other rulers and conquerors started using that title (or varients of) as a way of saying that they were the real (or the new) Romans. But later, people started using the term "Empire" and "Emperor" for other states (E.g. China, Japan, Persia) that didn't call themselves "Empires" or have a ruler titled "Emperor" except in translation. And as soon as that happens, then "Empire" ceases to mean "monarchy ruled by a soverign who's title harks back to Rome" and becomes "state that we think is sufficiently similar to those traditionally called empires that we think it should also be called an empire". The term then expanded (uncontroversialy) and to cover other states (like the European colonial powers) that weren't particularly Rome-like in structure but did a lot of conquering and colonizing other countries, and has most recently been expanded (more uncontroversialy) to cover non-monarchial states that either directly control a lot of unwilling territories, or have hegemony over technically indepenent states).
Finally, I will also point out, that if "empire" can only mean "state with a head called Emperor" then Britain didn't have an empire until Queen Victoria took the title "Empress of India" (and if we want to be really picky you could argue that there never was a "British Empire", just a British Kingdom that included the Empire of India); Rome stopped being an empire when its rulers were using the title "Augustus" or "Caesar" instead of Imperator, and Japan still is an empire.
So to get back to the original question/suggestion (and avoid turning this into a general discussion of the subject): I agree (although not necessarily with all the examples). There needs to be a distinction made and discussion on the two main meanings of "empire", namely (1) a monarchy whose sovereign uses the title "Emperor" (or one with a shared etymology), and (2) a state whose dominance has spread over other territories in such a way that people (or rather, reliable sources) consider it best described as an empire. Iapetus (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Wardog: I, too, apologize for my late reply. My watchlist is too long and I must've missed your reply. You said if "empire" can only mean "state with a head called Emperor" then Britain didn't have an empire until Queen Victoria took the title "Empress of India" (and if we want to be really picky you could argue that there never was a "British Empire", just a British Kingdom that included the Empire of India. Exactly my point.
I also agree that this article needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that the term empire is thrown around pretty lightly and it has been applied to lots of political and economic situations. I don't have any good sources immediately at hand but I can start looking. I'll post here when I find something; please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I have been editing this article for punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Here is a link to a sandbox with somepotential changes made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sue91/sandbox/empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue91 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Empire Ruled by Monarch or Oligarchy

I'm copyediting this page and see the statement: "Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled by a central authority either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy." Are monarchies and oligarchies the only forms of government for empires? ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 14:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Maurya Empire

The first sentence in the last paragraph of the section titled "Early empires," states that the Maurya Empire was ruled by the Mauryan dynasty from 321 to 185 BC. However, the next sentence states that the empire was founded in 322 BC. Can someone explain the apparent discrepancy in the year when the empire was founded? ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 08:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tonga Empire

In the last paragraph of the Post-classical section, the text states: "In Oceania, the Tonga Empire was a lonely empire that existed for many centuries from the Medieval to the Modern period."

I don't understand what is intended by the description "lonely empire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwajae (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Colonial empires

I copy-edited the section titled, "Colonial empires," but the text was confusing and needs clarification.

The first sentence states: "... proved ripe opportunities for the continent's Renaissance-era monarchies to launch colonial empires ... ." I believe that the word "continent" refers to "The Continent" or Continental Europe in this context but I hesitate to make the change without confirmation.

The second sentence, et seq., states:

In the Old World, colonial imperialism was attempted, effected, and established upon the Canary Islands and Ireland. These conquered lands and peoples became de jure subordinates of the empire, rather than de facto imperial territories and subjects. Such subjugation often elicited "client-state" resentment that the empire unwisely ignored, leading to the collapse of the European colonial imperial system in the late 19th century and the early- and mid-20th century.

In the above text, to what "empire" do references to "empire" refer? ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 22:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Transition from empire

The first sentence in this section reads:

In time, an empire may metamorphose to another form of polity. To wit, the Holy Roman Empire, a German re-constitution of the Roman Empire, metamorphosed into various political structures (i.e., federalism), and eventually, under Habsburg rule, re-constituted itself as the Austrian Empire, an empire of much different politics and vaster extension.

Although the sentence states: "various political structures," the parenthetical statement lists only one political structure. If the description "various" is correct, more than one political structure should be listed). ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 23:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary usage

This section is written in a very different voice than the previous sections. I made some minor copy edits; however, a more substantive rewrite should be considered. ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of empires

I don't know if it's possible to fix this issue; however, in the timeline chart, the empire labels overlay each other, which makes them difficult, if not impossible, to read. ˘ | ˘ Hwajaetalk 00:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I just cut this out

because if it is to survive at all it needs to be at least grammatically correct. Please fix it here before returning it.

"According to Stephen Howe the word empire is being misused in the past century. It was used in general for approval before but now it is used to describe a universal dislike to overpowering situations.[1] It is not only used as a metaphor but as a description for what they see as 'bad'. Howe goes on to describe how our lives are ‘colonized’ in a wide range of rhetorics, technology, bureaucracy, or the advertising industry.[2] The terms ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’ is generally used to describe the power relationship between two states or society.[3] The word ‘empire’ comes from the Latin word imperium meaning ‘sovereignty’ or ‘ruling’ of territories that are far beyond the homeland.[4]"br> thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press. pp. 10–15.
  2. ^ Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press. pp. 10–15.
  3. ^ Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press. pp. 10–15.
  4. ^ Howe, Stephen (2002). Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press. pp. 10–15.

Recent student edits

Perhaps related to the above section, a couple of new editors are adding stuff to this article, without refs, and with uneven quality. Is there a WP policy covering this, beyond WP:DONTBITE? That is, do we engage them on details for each edit, or just revert everything and tell them to go read our policy pages? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a policy sort of editor, I usually just chop it out and plop it here and see what happens. And suggest that you do the same unless you need a policy to act on. In which case there probably is one. Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

unrealistic map

the size of Greenland on the presented map is just silly.. its real area is 2 166 086 km2 compared to the African 30 221 532 km2, but on the map it looks about the same size.

Just noticed that google maps sevice is using the same sized Greenland... after some googling found that such unrealizm is a common thing because of the use of a "buggy" system - Mercator projection, [[1]] (i'm used to a more realistic [Robinson projection]) 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian Americas Omitted?

There appears to be nothing here about the numerous empires that existed in the Americas before the arrival of the Spaniards in the 15th Century. The Triple-Alliance of the Aztecs centred on Tenochtitlan in Mexico, and the empire of the Inca of Tawantinsuyu in Peru are the most obvious, with the latter being a contender for the largest empire of the early 16th Century. But there were at least a dozen other entities throughout Mexico, Central America, and the Andes that have been called empires.

Is there a reason they have been excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.44.127 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why there is only Mauryan Empire in Timeline ?

There many Empire beside Mauryan Empire in India and Nanda Empire was the first Indian empire which should also be added in Timeline --Chuniyana (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)chuniyana

A little biased, no?

Came to this article looking for contemporary examples of empires, and found this part... intriguing: "The initial motivations for the inception of the United States eventually led to the development of this tendency, which has been perpetuated by the country-wide obsession with this national narrative. The United States was formed because colonists did not like being under control of the British Empire. Essentially, the United States was formed in an attempt to reject imperialism. This makes it very hard for people to acknowledge America’s status as an empire." Maybe it's just be, but this part of the article, which is in many ways not very well sourced, seems to be written by someone with a bone to pick. Just my $0.02; I'm certainly no expert in the field, but I am familiar with objective scholarly writing, and this certainly isn't it.CitizenOfTheInterwebs (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think its problems are more amateurish than biased, but agree it's poor. There's something to the point being made here (the "irony" of America having an empire), but this isn't the way to do it. We could just delete it, but would prefer we find a source and improve/rewrite based on that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

quotes

To editor Maxaxax: Is there a reason you've been adding a lot of quotes? I find the practice without merit when we've got paragraphs of them from dozens of people. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

When I omit qoutes, I usually see "citation needed" inserted into the edit.--Maxaxax (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Maxaxax: What I'm referring to is edits like this. Lots of people may have made comments about world government. Are we going to list them all here? Encyclopedic writing should not just collate quotes; we should be writing prose, citing sources, and when needed add a note with the quote so the reader can see what the source said. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I converted the passage into prose. I also tried to clarify the confusion between world government (belongs to a different article) and world empire.--Maxaxax (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentence in second paragraph?

The second paragraph contains a section where the word empire is explained in a business context. This felt a little irrelevant and out of place considering it was the only sentence speaking about this, and the article already specified that it was in regards to the political and historical term. Nightdragon6834 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Some top treatment on philosophy

Some upfront treatment on the philosophy or general principles of "empire" is needed. Naturally empires are imperial. And "imperialism" is all-but synonymous with "hegemony," meaning its the same thing, and even dictionary definitions of "empire" define it using terms like "domination" "absolute power" and "supremacy." So adding "hegemonic" and "autocratic" to the mix is simple. That empire also tends to be aristocratic, meaning of hereditary succession form, and is associated with miltary overthrow, is additional information. -Inowen (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Empire as the legacy of Rome

Why does this article talk exclusively about the technical historical term? What's about the historical idea of the Empire that basically was about the legacy of Rome? The Western Empire was later referenced in the Carolingian, Holy Roman, French, Austrian and Second German Empires (not sure about Mussolini's kingdom), whereas the legacy of the Eastern Empire was the pillar for the Latin, Russian, and partially Ottoman Empires.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"the Empire?" There were/are lots of empires that have nothing to do with Rome. Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Detached paragraph removed

"This aspiration to universality resulted in conquest by converting 'outsiders' or 'inferiors' into the colonialized religion. This association of nationality and race became complex and has had a more intense drive for expansion. (Howe 2002, p. 10-15.)"

"This aspiration to universality" doesn't seem to refer to anything. I suspect that either (1) there used to be some text before it that was deleted, or (2) the whole paragraph has been copy-pasted from Howe. In any case, I removed it.__Gamren (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire/Archive_2&oldid=1132040474"