The stages of Empire collapse and why.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: anonentity

The British Empire bought New Zealand, Australia, Canada and to a greater extent The U.S. onto this planet.

I think NZ, Aistralia, Canada and the US existed long long before the BE slaughtered their native populations
Europeanized those countries is not bringing them into existence
You sound very proud of the oppression the UK brought to the world

a reply to: anonentity

You have it backwards. Most empires begin with military action and then grow soft, lazy, and corrupt before they collapse.

a reply to: anonentity

Actually Rome fell long after it’s military had crumbled..

There have been various reasons for the failure of the various empires over the years, and quite a few had nothing to do with dictatorship..


Rome reached its height under military dictatorship, not under their senate.


The British empire fell AFTER they had swapped from a king to parliament.


Athens fell do to demagoguery and a failed military invasion.



I’m not saying there are not lessons to be learned because there are, but I think your analysis is super superficial.. and even inaccurate.


Rome fell because it decentralized. The legions became mainly immigrants who’s loyalty was to whatever General was paying them.

Instead of Rome being one nation with one goal. It became 2 nation’s with two goals.

That rarely happens under a dictatorship strong enough to keep power because there is one common goal. Usually the fall comes after that leader dies and his heirs or competition rip it to peices.


Then you have the Economic side that isn’t really measurable over centuries because what constitutes rich and poor changes.. it is all relative to how rich the rich are. As soon as the peasants decide TPTB are not sharing enough to provide them with a decent standard of living relative to the wealthy, they tend to burn it all down.

a reply to: toms54


Indeed they might when it was a democratic Republic. but when the gloves come off and it becomes a Military dictatorship with a paid army its only a matter of time before its over, Originally the army was formed by vested interests, and those that had a stake in the republic, who fought for free during the time of the year when the fields were fallow.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: anonentity

This American Empire you speak about, how many countries outside of The U.S. do you have political control of ?

How many countries outside of The U.S. fly the Stars and Stripes over their Government buildings?

Until those things happen. The U.S. does not have an " Empire ". It's all in your imagination.

Oh, we don't call it empire. Around here, it's simply known as hegemony.

It's kinda like empire lite, or actually empire wannabe .

Ultimately the economic and political toll is the same; maybe worse as it entails all the liabilities of empire with very little of the political and economic benefit.

:

a reply to: anonentity

Really I have an almost completely opposite take on history than what you have presented here.

In fact, I disagree with most of the posts in this thread. I think some here get their history mostly from TV and Hollywood. It's not taught much in schools anymore and if it is, it's socialist propaganda.

The US has always been militaristic ever since the Indian wars. We fought our way across the country and have been fighting ever since. We've fought all of our neighbors and against half of the other countries in the world. We've occupied Mexico and Central America. We basically created Central America using CORPORATIONS backed with US military force. There was the Monroe Doctrine and the Marshall plan and whatever they had in the Pacific after WWII.

No one fought these wars for free unless they were actually fighting Indians on their own property. As for those fallow fields, no one plans a campaign for the winter or monsoon season, they plan for the spring and summer.

Rome became an empire after it was a republic for about as long as america has been one and it was at their greatest period of military expansion and economic domination of surrounding nations that they became an empire, with the roman influence from the education of the founding fathers, the way i see it the empire is in the future not in the past or in the present. there's no collapse because there's no empire yet.

the americas are still free after all.

originally posted by: Willtell
If America doesn’t have an empire then what is it doing trying to invade Cuba, invading Grenada, and Panama and messing around in the ME with wars and interventions.
Sure they have an empire, just not by the traditional overt means of the past like the British or Roman Empire


Russia had an empire under the Soviet Union which has been taken down.


In fact the so far short-lived American empire may be the greatest one in history and the shortest one in history.

You have it completely wrong. Soviet Union took down the real Russian Empire which is called Tsar Empire.
Soviet Union wasn't really a Russian empire. It was a political alliance of Communism.

Same thing as Hitler and Mussolini being in a Fascist alliance. The one with better technology seems to takeover the smaller ones such as Germany had more control of Italy like Russia had more control of Ukraine. As for US it was capitalist and neutral which fell when the stock exchange crashed. UK was still the British Empire before/during WW2 was a Common Wealth of Nations(an alliance itself).

US on the hand joining the war on the side of Common wealth alliance was not at all capitalist itself. It forced the rich or greedy people to start hiring for war as the government took over. Basically, US is a fail country if it can't live without war.

Soviet Union fell because it was easily infiltrated by allies compare to the Chinese. Also everyone hated Stalin leadership such as Trotsky. Stalin became a dictator of Soviet Union and went against his own comrades, sending them in the gulag. None of the Soviet leaders trusted each other after Lenin died. It was an internal conflict.

originally posted by: namehere
... the americas are still free after all.

That, my friend, is an arguable preposition, though perhaps the argument is best saved for another thread.

a reply to: alldaylong
Ya your right, the U.S. does not have a "Empire" it just has a pushy and itchy millitary machine, and a very not smart economic private sector scheme. After all what do you call spending trillions and trillion, just so a few groups, people. and countries can make a few million?

A very not smart plan.

Oh ya! Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But then again, history is never the same depending on what history books you read, and who published it. And any enlightenment being knows that the only thing one can take and learn from history, is that nobody really learns from history. And even the more enlightened know that there is not history.

Hence things are repeated. Repetition is key in getting things right....Eventually.

a reply to: makemap

The success of the war on an economic level was two-fold, and the Vietnam war was a success on the second level. The lives taken put more people back to work, post-war.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: anonentity

The British Empire bought New Zealand, Australia, Canada and to a greater extent The U.S. onto this planet.

I think NZ, Aistralia, Canada and the US existed long long before the BE slaughtered their native populations
Europeanized those countries is not bringing them into existence
You sound very proud of the oppression the UK brought to the world

Australia Founded 1788

New Zealand Founded 1856

Canada Founded 1867

You know when The U.S. was founded .

All of them founded under The British Empire.

The British Empire achieved some good and some bad episodes. Yes, i am proud of the good things that where achieved.

a reply to: alldaylong

Short of slaughtering millions of native people, never mind the looting
I don't know when the US was founded

Simply the UK did not make these countries suddenly exist, they conquered and then colonized them

a reply to: alldaylong

I’m not sure that the aborigines and American Indians would agree with you that Canada, the US , Australia and other puppet states the BE set up “were a good thing” lol..

You had like 90% of the Native American population die from disease the second Europeans showed up..

One thing the west introduced to the America and Africa was “wars of annihilation”. They don’t think there were relatively a whole lot of deaths in the wars between tribes. They would all line up and throw spears at each other till one side ran. Then it was over. Some had a crazy form of slavery that was way closer to a forced adoption.


It was European’s who introduced killing EVERYONE in war. Women and children.. basically you genocide the whole population.


Then there is the happiness factor...


There are countless examples of Europeans who left western society to go live a tribal life. There are no examples of natives voluntarily shunning tribal life to go live with the Europeans.


I kinda think total war and wars of annihilation might be the what allowed western culture to conquer the world.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Simply the UK did not make these countries suddenly exist, they conquered and then colonized them

They did not exist as countries before The British Empire. There where tribes scattered around, without a Government or any type of infrastructure.

Get a grip.

a reply to: alldaylong

Define a country lol.....

The America’s has the iraquois confederacy which is actually considered an empire historically.

They had laws, militaries, religions , territories , trade, rulers, treaties exc, exc..

They had all the inferstructure they needed.. which is why they had existed for thousands of years.... the fact they didn’t have a flag and instead used totem poles or what have you, doesn’t mean they didn’t have a nation... obviously..


They just didn’t have thechnological advancement, but if that is the measurement we are using for what constitutes a nation. Any nation more advanced than another has everyright to conquer them.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

What you described there is not a country.

It's a mixture of tribes and tribal homelands. I am all for getting back to that, if you don't want the advantages of the modern world.

a reply to: alldaylong

How is it not a country???


You have taxes, military , inferstructure laws, monarchs...land they had been farming for generations., courts trade treaties...


There is no moral claim to be had on conquering someone else’s land. There is however “right by conquest”. Which is the oldest and most prevalent claim to any land mass.


But there isn’t any use in pretending it is anything but right by conquest.


In just about every case , irreguardless of race , creed or religion if our ancestors had the ability to be monsters. They were monsters. Lol

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How is it not a country???

Tribes or Nations ( which you have in North America i.e The Sioux Tribe ) are not countries.

A country is defined as a region or an area of a land which is controlled by its own government. The term ‘nation’ refers to a community or group of people who share the same history, language, descent and a common government.

www.differencebetween.info...

a reply to: alldaylong

I have to get the grip
What makes you, whoever you are, whatever you think you are, makes you the oracle, the decider...

It's not worth my time

William Wallace is your king, I,saw the movie, Scotsman, the windsors are Germans, Britain was conquered centuries ago 😁