Will empire return?

[Vouthon]

The historian John Darwin claims that empire is the default mode of politics in the history of the world.

China, for example, was ruled by various imperial dynasties (after coming together as a polity in the aftermarth of the Warring States period in 221 BCE) for over 2,000 years, before it became a republic in 1912. The Roman Empire founded by Caesar Augustus in 27 BC, after the fall of the Roman Republic, lasted for 1,500 years with its eastern Byzantine half falling to the Ottomans during the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. By contrast, the ancient Athenian direct democracy lasted a mere 186 years by comparison.

Throughout most of our species' history over the past four thousand years, the majority of human beings have likewise lived in these vast, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic, transcultural political units called 'empires' with a centre (usually a city or country) exercising control over subordinate peripheries.

From the realms of the Achaemenids and Ashoka to the empires of Mali and Songhay, and from ancient Rome and China, the caliphates of Islam to the Mughals, American settler colonialism, and the Soviet Union (which the historian Serhii Plokhy calls "the Last Empire", as he explains: "I call the Soviet Union the last empire not because I believe that there will be no empires in the future but because it was the last state that carried on the legacies of the “classical” European and Eurasian empires of the modern era.")

With the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the western world began a slow march away from imperialism towards nationalism, which culminated in the First World War in the twentieth century and saw the beginning of the collapse of the world’s major empires, including the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, British, French and Portuguese. This process of decolonization accelerated in the 1950s-60s after the defeat of the Third Reich in the Second World War and was completed by the 1990s, when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 and the United Kingdom handed Hong Kong back to mainland PRC China in 1997.

Will empires make a comeback in future centuries, however?

It has been said that capitalist society is likely to work best when it is organized and led by a single great power that can provide a top currency, insist on free trade, protects its allies, and provide capital and its own market for developing countries.

Today, this position is exercised by the United States through NATO, NAFTA and trade hegemony, China via its Belt and Road Initiative and the European Union (through the "Brussels Effect"). Is this not 'imperialism lite'? When the EU sets rules, these regulatory standards impact global economic activity and lead to a tangible impact on the lives of citizens far from its borders, which has been described by scholars as: "a form of unilateral regulatory globalization where a single state is able to externalize its laws and regulations outside its borders through market mechanisms, resulting in globalization of standards."

(continued...)

 

[Vouthon]

Let's remember that the ancient Roman Empire started in a not dissimilar fashion, trade and military alliances with nominally sovereign "allies" that were increasingly dependent on protection and aid from the superior power:


Foederati - Wikipedia

Foederati (/ˌfɛdəˈreɪtaɪ/, singular: foederatus /ˌfɛdəˈreɪtəs/) were peoples and cities bound by a treaty, known as foedus, with Rome. During the Roman Republic, the term identified the socii, but during the Roman Empire, it was used to describe foreign states, client kingdoms or barbarian tribes to which the empire provided benefits in exchange for military assistance. ​

In the early Roman Republic, foederati were tribes that were bound by a treaty (foedus /ˈfiːdəs/) to come to the defence of Rome but were neither Roman colonies nor beneficiaries of Roman citizenship (civitas).

​

A paradigmatic example is the "Roman-Jewish Treaty" of 161 BCE described in the biblical Book of Maccabees:


Roman–Jewish Treaty - Wikipedia.

The Roman–Jewish Treaty was an agreement made between Judas Maccabeus and the Roman Republic according to 1 Maccabees 8:17–20 and Josephus. It took place in 161 BCE and was the first recorded contract between the Jewish people and the Romans.

The treaty was signed during the Maccabean Revolt against the Greco-Syrian Seleucid kingdom. During this period, Rome's power and influence in the Hellenistic world was growing. Rome had recently humiliated the Seleucid King Antiochus IV by ordering his troops to leave Egypt, and had previously defeated his father Antiochus III in battle. After winning a number of victories and capturing Jerusalem, Judas Maccabeus sent two emissaries, Eupolemus son of John son of Accos and Jason son of Eleazar, to establish a treaty of friendship with the Roman Senate. This proposal was accepted and a treaty was signed.

According to I Maccabees chapter 8:

May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews at sea and on land forever, and may sword and enemy be far from them. If war comes first to Rome or to any of their allies in all their dominion, the nation of the Jews shall act as their allies wholeheartedly, as the occasion may indicate to them. To the enemy that makes war they shall not give or supply grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep their obligations without receiving any return. In the same way, if war comes first to the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall willingly act as their allies, as the occasion may indicate to them. And to their enemies there shall not be given grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep these obligations and do so without deceit. Thus on these terms the Romans make a treaty with the Jewish people. If after these terms are in effect both parties shall determine to add or delete anything, they shall do so at their discretion, and any addition or deletion that they may make shall be valid. Concerning the wrongs that King Demetrius is doing to them, we have written to him as follows:, 'Why have you made your yoke heavy on our friends and allies the Jews? If now they appeal again for help against you, we will defend their rights and fight you on sea and on land.'​

Compare with modern examples, from the United States and European Union:


NATO - Wikipedia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 member states – 28 European and two North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implemented the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949

​

European Union Association Agreement - Wikipedia

A European Union Association Agreement or simply Association Agreement (AA) is a treaty between the European Union (EU), its Member States and a non-EU country that creates a framework for co-operation between them. Areas frequently covered by such agreements include the development of political, trade, social, cultural and security links...

The EU typically concludes Association Agreements in exchange for commitments to political, economic, trade, or human rights reform in a country. In exchange, the country may be offered tariff-free access to some or all EU markets (industrial goods, agricultural products, etc.), and financial or technical assistance. Most recently signed AAs also include a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and the third country.

​

In 161 BCE, Jews were waging a rebellion against the Seleucid Empire for their independence as a sovereign state and they sought an alliance and trading relationship with the Roman Republic to ensure this. Rome did come to their aid and basically imposed sanctions on the Seleucids, affording the new Jewish polity international legitimacy. Thus, Judea became a sovereign state under the Hasmoneans.

At this time, the Jews praised the freedom and representativeness of the republican Roman system of governance with their Senate chamber, as the Maccabean author eulogizes:

"Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong and were well-disposed toward all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them, and that they were very strong...

They have subdued kings far and near, and as many as have heard of their fame have feared them. 13 Those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose, and they have been greatly exalted. Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride, but they have built for themselves a senate chamber, and every day three hundred twenty senators constantly deliberate concerning the people, to govern them well. 16 They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man, and there is no envy or jealousy among them.

So Judas chose Eupolemus son of John son of Accos, and Jason son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance, and to free themselves from the yoke; for they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was enslaving Israel completely" (1 Maccabees 8)

​

Just a hundred years later, in 63 BCE the Roman Republic intervened in an internal Judean political crisis over inheritance to the throne and started to install sympathetic leaders, in other words turning Judea from sovereign ally into a client state of the Republic. This was after the Hasmonean dynasty had attempted to chart an independent foreign policy.

Then in the 40s BCE, Judea attempted once again to assert autonomy and ally itself with Rome's foe, the Parthian Empire, following which the Roman Republic installed Herod as a puppet king in 37 BCE. Finally, in 6 CE Rome - now no longer a 'republic' but an Empire under Augustus - annexed and partitioned Judea, converting its territories into provinces of the Roman Empire.

Could this ancient history (i.e. the fate of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea and the transition of the Roman republican system into an empire) provide a lesson for us today? Consider that allied states of the US, "the spokes in the wheels of the rimless bicycle dominated by Washington" to quote one scholar, are often opposed to American foreign policy decisions yet no state has the real desire to challenge its hegemony, prepared instead even to prop up the hegemon so that they can continue to live under its protection and trade.

One historian writes: "if we want to understand our world, we need to deepen our understanding of the changing character of empire". I agree, because I believe it is still with us and is likely to shape our future again.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is a new theory called Chaos Control which is a theory in Physics (not in political theory); however it shows promise that we might someday find stability in political systems. Political systems seem to go in cycles. They have a pattern that is chaotic. The political wind flops back and forth, seemingly over trivial matters. It seems out of control. Similarly physical chaotic systems act that way. They go through cycles, then flop to a different cycle, then flop back for seemingly trivial reasons.

I agree empire is the default for agrarian cultures, however our culture is something new because of the many new inventions. We don't yet know what its default will be. For example we can substitute appliances for slaves. Previous cultures could not.

 

[danieldemol]

One can only hope it doesn't return.
In my opinion.

 

[sun rise]

Since I don't believe that human nature is permanently static, we might evolve into a different culture. That has been explored in various science-fiction stories.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Its hard to know what the future will look like politically but a great question to ponder nonetheless.

Any analysis of world affairs would best include the United Nations and the various organisations that operate under its umbrella such as the security council, WTO, IMF and WHO. These organisations to some extent encompass all nations. So while it is invaluable to look back at history, it would be hard to find any parallels to an organisation such as the UN that encompasses most nations and peoples on the planet.

The future of international governing bodies has become increasingly essential over the last 120 years, as many of the challenges and crisis for humanity are those that affect us all, such as weapons of mass destruction, the environment and pandemics. That implies the need for greater international co-operation.

Other considerations are the dominance of democracy as the main modus operandi in local, national and global affairs. The equality of men and women is more universally recognised and applied and has important implications for the running of human affairs. The rise of science, universal education, abolition of slavery and removal of all forms of prejudice based on race, ethnicity and nation are further considerations.

 

[Heyo]

The historian John Darwin claims that empire is the default mode of politics in the history of the world.

China, for example, was ruled by various imperial dynasties (after coming together as a polity in the aftermarth of the Warring States period in 221 BCE) for over 2,000 years, before it became a republic in 1912. The Roman Empire founded by Caesar Augustus in 27 BC, after the fall of the Roman Republic, lasted for 1,500 years with its eastern Byzantine half falling to the Ottomans during the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. By contrast, the ancient Athenian direct democracy lasted a mere 186 years by comparison.

That could also be an argument against the return of empires. While the Roman empire lasted a thousand years, modern empires rarely make it a hundred. I'd have to look deeper into it, at the moment it is only a hunch but my guess is that empires are becoming less stable over time while cooperative democracies become more stable.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Bit of a stretch to say that the Roman Empire founded by Augustus lasted 1500 years. It is arguable that Rome’s greatest legacy was her Republic, and the development of a legal system which sustained that republic until it’s theft by the Julio-Claudian dynasty of tyrants.

 

[Heyo]

Bit of a stretch to say that the Roman Empire founded by Augustus lasted 1500 years. It is arguable that Rome’s greatest legacy was her Republic, and the development of a legal system which sustained that republic until it’s theft by the Julio-Claudian dynasty of tyrants.

That touches the definition of empire. I don't associate empire with monarchy or dictatorship (or any form of government at all). An empire is a nation that exerts power over it's borders. Rome was an empire long before the Caesarian period (and lost empire status long before the fall of Byzance). The US is a modern empire and is, at least nominally, a democracy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That touches the definition of empire. I don't associate empire with monarchy or dictatorship (or any form of government at all). An empire is a nation that exerts power over it's borders. Rome was an empire long before the Caesarian period (and lost empire status long before the fall of Byzance). The US is a modern empire and is, at least nominally, a democracy.

Are the values of democracy compatible with imperialism? On the face of it, you’d have to say no, even if there may have been periods in history which support a different narrative. At the very least, there must be a significant internal tension when a democratic society attempts to interfere in the affairs of it’s neighbours against their will.

One lesson the US has taken a long time to learn, is that you cannot export democracy by force. All empires have used the justification that the imperial nation brought the benefits of civilisation to the subject nations; often, however, those benefits were unwanted.

The use of force to impose Roman law on Mediterranean cultures may or may not be held to have been successful. The use of force by the US and her allies, to impose democracy on the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster; as was the attempt to do likewise in Vietnam. Whether this is because democracy and empire building are intrinsically incompatible, I don’t know; but I suspect that may be a factor.

 

[Heyo]

Are the values of democracy compatible with imperialism? On the face of it, you’d have to say no, even if there may have been periods in history which support a different narrative. At the very least, there must be a significant internal tension when a democratic society attempts to interfere in the affairs of it’s neighbours against their will.

One lesson the US has taken a long time to learn, is that you cannot export democracy by force. All empires have used the justification that the imperial nation brought the benefits of civilisation to the subject nations; often, however, those benefits were unwanted.

The use of force to impose Roman law on Mediterranean cultures may or may not be held to have been successful. The use of force by the US and her allies, to impose democracy on the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster; as was the attempt to do likewise in Vietnam. Whether this is because democracy and empire building are intrinsically incompatible, I don’t know; but I suspect that may be a factor.

<insert "what have the Romans done for us lately?" clip from Life of Brian here>

 

[Stevicus]

Will empires make a comeback in future centuries, however?

Hard to make predictions like this when we're not even sure if humans will be alive in future centuries.

One thing that's been a significant change over the past centuries is that humanity has grown up to a large degree. Humans are not as impressed as they once were about the "glory of empire." People once viewed expansionism and conquest as great and wonderful things and an enormous source of pride and accomplishment. In Britain, they used to say "Rule Brittania," and in the U.S., it was "Manifest Destiny" and American Exceptionalism. The idea that it was "God's will" or that anyone was born to rule or born to conquer - that idea is no longer as palatable as it once was.

It doesn't seem likely there would be any "empire" if it's considered embarrassing and in bad taste to have one.

As a result, after WW2, the major powers of the world bent over backwards to either dismantle their empires and/or claim that they don't have any such thing as an "empire."

In the post-war world, it was all about freedom and democracy and supporting the sovereignty of independent nations. Trouble was, a lot of people didn't really buy it, as it appeared to be just a disingenuous facade to cover more imperialistic intentions.

One example of this process might be Cuba, where a popular uprising overthrew the government which many viewed as a U.S. puppet (although with enough plausible deniability to make it appear "legitimate"). In response, the U.S. set up and supplied a group of anti-Castro Cubans willing to launch a counter-revolution and restore a US-friendly Cuban government. If we were the Romans, we would have just sent our own legions in to retake the rebellious territory and crucify all the rebels. But since we were Americans and technically not an empire, they needed a bit more subtlety and finesse. They couldn't make it look obvious or heavy-handed (not like the Soviets in Hungary).

It turned out to be a failure, precisely because our leaders were more concerned with not looking like an empire, even though they seemingly wanted to be one anyway.

Though it seems incredibly important, for the sake of image and appearances, that our leadership presents itself in such a way as to pass themselves off as compassionate, decent, freedom-loving, generous, etc.

 

[Rival]

One can only hope it doesn't return.
In my opinion.

Bit of a stretch to say that the Roman Empire founded by Augustus lasted 1500 years. It is arguable that Rome’s greatest legacy was her Republic, and the development of a legal system which sustained that republic until it’s theft by the Julio-Claudian dynasty of tyrants.

Are the values of democracy compatible with imperialism? On the face of it, you’d have to say no, even if there may have been periods in history which support a different narrative. At the very least, there must be a significant internal tension when a democratic society attempts to interfere in the affairs of it’s neighbours against their will.

One lesson the US has taken a long time to learn, is that you cannot export democracy by force. All empires have used the justification that the imperial nation brought the benefits of civilisation to the subject nations; often, however, those benefits were unwanted.

The use of force to impose Roman law on Mediterranean cultures may or may not be held to have been successful. The use of force by the US and her allies, to impose democracy on the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster; as was the attempt to do likewise in Vietnam. Whether this is because democracy and empire building are intrinsically incompatible, I don’t know; but I suspect that may be a factor.

I think a few points would be useful to note here:

I. The topic isn't really imperialist empires such as the British Empire; the main is about the voluntary union as we see with the EU; the initial US; the Pan-African Unions and perhaps more broadly things like the Islamic Ummah and the idea of Christendom, the latter of which has a head figure in some sense, whether it be the Pope, the Archbishop or the Ecumenical Patriarch etc. We can look at Rome here as the biggest by far of these. Rome in its later years was a kind of crystal that attracted various tribal groups who wanted to join, not decimate it. The Goths in all their forms, the Franks, the Saxons wanted to be part of it and you have figures like Odoacer becoming Emperor - he's a Germanic. This is voluntary but yes, somewhat fiery, whilst nevertheless being a group of people who were already Christianised (Arians) wanting to join, not plunder, Rome. Following this we see the Romanised and later Christianised Celtic nations of Gaul, Iberia, Britannia etc. which are looking to keep themselves part of Rome and desperately work to keep their Roman heritage when the Western Empire is clearly smouldering.

This simply cannot really be compared to places like the US, which wish to invade and Americanise. This is not what Rome initially did, but even after they did their conquests became and stayed Roman. What crystal Rome was/is made of, the US and others simply do not have. People are not clamouring to be part of the US the same way people were clamouring to be part of Rome (Celts, Germanics, Slavs, Greeks etc.) We need to have some more nuanced perspective. Rome had the notion of Civitias and we see ancient figures like Paul who are both proudly Jewish and proudly Greek speaking Romans.

We must first analyse this phenomenon and the best place to replicate that has been the EU (members want to join and are part of a multi-ethnic, multilingual union that nevertheless they feel represents them) and the Pan-African Union etc. The EU, unlike the US and its territories, isn't ripping itself to bits. Even Brexit wasn't like that - Brexit happened democratically in a way that is actually illegal in the US for states to do.

II. This isn't about some aggressive empire-building or national expansion. This isn't like bs ideas of US 'Manifest Destiny' or 'White Man's Burden'. This is people believing that their nations and economies will work best if consolidated into things like single markets and other trade agreements, as well as having overarching legislation that guarantees the same in every nation, whilst being able to be part of a shared legal system no matter which nation you're in, e.g. branches like the ECHR. Again, just as we see Paul protesting that he is a Roman citizen he wants to be tried by Rome - this can happen anywhere within the Empire, technically, and he knows the law will be the same. You simplify standards and systems this way. People, such as in the EU or Ummah with a broadly shared Shariah, want to be part of this because it gives them free movement, trade, legal protections etc. IOW they benefit from this, unlike US expansionism, which is a joke.

III. It can be compatible with democracy if you want it to be. Look at the various systems one finds in Europe alone - the UK with our Constitutional Monarch, the French Republique, the Swiss referendum system etc. There are many ways of doing things and if you want to combine democracy with a strong leader you can also do that.

I don't think this is quite what a lot of folks think it is and 'empire' needs to become more nuanced a word. The EU is an empire, but so was The Ottoman Empire. We need to learn the very meaningful differences.

IV. This is a fundamentally religious idea in many ways. It was a shared legal and religious system that brought the Israelite tribes together; it was a shared religious and legal system that brought Christian Europe together; it was a shared religious and legal system that brought the Islamic Ummah together. These people wanted this, believing it makes them more moral, closer together, stronger and more economically viable. It gives them a shared identity with shared values, beliefs and interests. It allows the various differing cultures to come together under one banner culture that holds them together instead of becoming warring tribes/states. It unifies their legal systems and senses of self.

Many religious people see in empire a buffer to attack or decline or abuse from local national leaders (for example, if your European king were being an arse, you could appeal to the Pope or HRE). You have set aside your nationality etc. and understand everyone to be part of the vast unity you are, as with Rome or Persia. This has been beneficial right up until the time of the nationstate, when we came up with a different model, one that many argue doesn't fully function and still needs the 'banner culture', the empire, to prop these nations up to prevent war etc. This is helpful if it's the same religion as you, the same value system as yours. It can't just be something like the UN or NATO with no cultural or religious function for identity building at all. No-one identifies with NATO.

 

[Stevicus]

Are the values of democracy compatible with imperialism? On the face of it, you’d have to say no, even if there may have been periods in history which support a different narrative. At the very least, there must be a significant internal tension when a democratic society attempts to interfere in the affairs of it’s neighbours against their will.

One lesson the US has taken a long time to learn, is that you cannot export democracy by force. All empires have used the justification that the imperial nation brought the benefits of civilisation to the subject nations; often, however, those benefits were unwanted.

The use of force to impose Roman law on Mediterranean cultures may or may not be held to have been successful. The use of force by the US and her allies, to impose democracy on the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster; as was the attempt to do likewise in Vietnam. Whether this is because democracy and empire building are intrinsically incompatible, I don’t know; but I suspect that may be a factor.

I agree with most of this, and one thought that comes to mind regarding the U.S. is that, at least on a surface level, it appears that the American leadership has had a somewhat ignorant and/or naive view of the rest of the world. We've also had quite an inflated opinion of ourselves as an advanced, enlightened, freedom-loving nation, and we believe that everyone else in the world should view us that way, too. We just want the world to like us.

The problem for the U.S. seems to be not unlike that of a bully who wants to be respected and feared, yet still have everyone like him while he remains the richest kid on the block. It seems rooted in the image of wanting to appear noble, honorable, heroic - while at the same time still trying to safeguard national interests and not wanting to "appear weak," which is another part of the overall drama we call "geopolitics."

Another problematic issue, at least in terms of your point regarding trying to impose democracy by force, seems to be this cultural notion that human nature is universal. It carries the assumption that since we enjoy freedom and democracy, everyone else in the world just naturally wants it. But the only problem are these various tyrants, dictators, and other "rogue governments" which somehow prevent the people in their countries from having what they want. So, the justification for the use of force is based in the notion that it's being used against these villainous forces who seek only to deprive the people of freedom and democracy for their own nefarious ends. But do the people in these countries actually want freedom and democracy?

The Western model of liberal democracy grew up concurrent with the same imperialistic notions. While we were calling ourselves the "land of the free" and "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," we were engaging in some expansionist and imperialistic activities.

Likewise, France, Britain, and other Western European countries started to become more liberalized and granted more rights and freedoms to the lower classes, even while they were running roughshod over much of the rest of the world in an expansionist bid for "empire." Even in Rome, they knew full well the importance of keeping the home folks happy while they violently and oppressively imposed their will throughout the empire. After all, they needed a sizeable pool of happy, loyal subjects to be able to recruit from. So, many Western countries practiced liberalism, democracy, and human rights for "their own people," but anyone outside of that bubble did not enjoy such protections and privileges.

 

[exchemist]

Let's remember that the ancient Roman Empire started in a not dissimilar fashion, trade and military alliances with nominally sovereign "allies" that were increasingly dependent on protection and aid from the superior power:


Foederati - Wikipedia

Foederati (/ˌfɛdəˈreɪtaɪ/, singular: foederatus /ˌfɛdəˈreɪtəs/) were peoples and cities bound by a treaty, known as foedus, with Rome. During the Roman Republic, the term identified the socii, but during the Roman Empire, it was used to describe foreign states, client kingdoms or barbarian tribes to which the empire provided benefits in exchange for military assistance. ​

In the early Roman Republic, foederati were tribes that were bound by a treaty (foedus /ˈfiːdəs/) to come to the defence of Rome but were neither Roman colonies nor beneficiaries of Roman citizenship (civitas).

​

A paradigmatic example is the "Roman-Jewish Treaty" of 161 BCE described in the biblical Book of Maccabees:


Roman–Jewish Treaty - Wikipedia.

The Roman–Jewish Treaty was an agreement made between Judas Maccabeus and the Roman Republic according to 1 Maccabees 8:17–20 and Josephus. It took place in 161 BCE and was the first recorded contract between the Jewish people and the Romans.

The treaty was signed during the Maccabean Revolt against the Greco-Syrian Seleucid kingdom. During this period, Rome's power and influence in the Hellenistic world was growing. Rome had recently humiliated the Seleucid King Antiochus IV by ordering his troops to leave Egypt, and had previously defeated his father Antiochus III in battle. After winning a number of victories and capturing Jerusalem, Judas Maccabeus sent two emissaries, Eupolemus son of John son of Accos and Jason son of Eleazar, to establish a treaty of friendship with the Roman Senate. This proposal was accepted and a treaty was signed.

According to I Maccabees chapter 8:

May all go well with the Romans and with the nation of the Jews at sea and on land forever, and may sword and enemy be far from them. If war comes first to Rome or to any of their allies in all their dominion, the nation of the Jews shall act as their allies wholeheartedly, as the occasion may indicate to them. To the enemy that makes war they shall not give or supply grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep their obligations without receiving any return. In the same way, if war comes first to the nation of the Jews, the Romans shall willingly act as their allies, as the occasion may indicate to them. And to their enemies there shall not be given grain, arms, money, or ships, just as Rome has decided; and they shall keep these obligations and do so without deceit. Thus on these terms the Romans make a treaty with the Jewish people. If after these terms are in effect both parties shall determine to add or delete anything, they shall do so at their discretion, and any addition or deletion that they may make shall be valid. Concerning the wrongs that King Demetrius is doing to them, we have written to him as follows:, 'Why have you made your yoke heavy on our friends and allies the Jews? If now they appeal again for help against you, we will defend their rights and fight you on sea and on land.'​

Compare with modern examples, from the United States and European Union:


NATO - Wikipedia

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord, OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 member states – 28 European and two North American. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implemented the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington, D.C., on 4 April 1949

​

European Union Association Agreement - Wikipedia

A European Union Association Agreement or simply Association Agreement (AA) is a treaty between the European Union (EU), its Member States and a non-EU country that creates a framework for co-operation between them. Areas frequently covered by such agreements include the development of political, trade, social, cultural and security links...

The EU typically concludes Association Agreements in exchange for commitments to political, economic, trade, or human rights reform in a country. In exchange, the country may be offered tariff-free access to some or all EU markets (industrial goods, agricultural products, etc.), and financial or technical assistance. Most recently signed AAs also include a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and the third country.

​

In 161 BCE, Jews were waging a rebellion against the Seleucid Empire for their independence as a sovereign state and they sought an alliance and trading relationship with the Roman Republic to ensure this. Rome did come to their aid and basically imposed sanctions on the Seleucids, affording the new Jewish polity international legitimacy. Thus, Judea became a sovereign state under the Hasmoneans.

At this time, the Jews praised the freedom and representativeness of the republican Roman system of governance with their Senate chamber, as the Maccabean author eulogizes:

"Now Judas heard of the fame of the Romans, that they were very strong and were well-disposed toward all who made an alliance with them, that they pledged friendship to those who came to them, and that they were very strong...

They have subdued kings far and near, and as many as have heard of their fame have feared them. 13 Those whom they wish to help and to make kings, they make kings, and those whom they wish they depose, and they have been greatly exalted. Yet for all this not one of them has put on a crown or worn purple as a mark of pride, but they have built for themselves a senate chamber, and every day three hundred twenty senators constantly deliberate concerning the people, to govern them well. 16 They trust one man each year to rule over them and to control all their land; they all heed the one man, and there is no envy or jealousy among them.

So Judas chose Eupolemus son of John son of Accos, and Jason son of Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance, and to free themselves from the yoke; for they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was enslaving Israel completely" (1 Maccabees 8)

​

Just a hundred years later, in 63 BCE the Roman Republic intervened in an internal Judean political crisis over inheritance to the throne and started to install sympathetic leaders, in other words turning Judea from sovereign ally into a client state of the Republic. This was after the Hasmonean dynasty had attempted to chart an independent foreign policy.

Then in the 40s BCE, Judea attempted once again to assert autonomy and ally itself with Rome's foe, the Parthian Empire, following which the Roman Republic installed Herod as a puppet king in 37 BCE. Finally, in 6 CE Rome - now no longer a 'republic' but an Empire under Augustus - annexed and partitioned Judea, converting its territories into provinces of the Roman Empire.

Could this ancient history (i.e. the fate of the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea and the transition of the Roman republican system into an empire) provide a lesson for us today? Consider that allied states of the US, "the spokes in the wheels of the rimless bicycle dominated by Washington" to quote one scholar, are often opposed to American foreign policy decisions yet no state has the real desire to challenge its hegemony, prepared instead even to prop up the hegemon so that they can continue to live under its protection and trade.

One historian writes: "if we want to understand our world, we need to deepen our understanding of the changing character of empire". I agree, because I believe it is still with us and is likely to shape our future again.

The big question surely out of all this is what "empire" really means. It's certainly true that the concept of the nation state is recent (c.f. Treaty of Westphalia, 1648). Before then much of Europe consisted of city states that often were too small to be truly autonomous. There were many "empires", if you want to call them that, arrangements that sometimes tightly and sometimes loosely covered larger regions, with examples ranging from the Habsburg "empire" and Poland/Lithuania to the Hanseatic League. But it seems to me calling some of these empires risks being a bit anachronistic, given that there weren't - generally speaking - nation states in the modern sense to be officially subjugated.

If one restricts the term empire to regions brought under the rule of a dominant power by military force, then that narrows it down a lot but would exclude modern collective politico-economic arrangements such as the EU, or Chinese influence via the Belt and Road initiative and similar concepts. Empires in that narrow sense would seem to be largely a thing of the past - as Putin is currently discovering.

 

[Rival]

The big question surely out of all this is what "empire" really means. It's certainly true that the concept of the nation state is recent (c.f. Treaty of Westphalia, 1648). Before then much of Europe consisted of city states that often were too small to be truly autonomous. There were many "empires", if you want to call them that, arrangements that sometimes tightly and sometimes loosely covered larger regions, with examples ranging from the Habsburg "empire" and Poland/Lithuania to the Hanseatic League. But it seems to me calling some of these empires risks being a bit anachronistic, given that there weren't - generally speaking - nation states in the modern sense to be officially subjugated.

If one restricts the term empire to regions brought under the rule of a dominant power by military force, then that narrows it down a lot but would exclude modern collective politico-economic arrangements such as the EU, or Chinese influence via the Belt and Road initiative and similar concepts. Empires in that narrow sense would seem to be largely a thing of the past - as Putin is currently discovering.

To be fair, re Putin, he had already annexed Georgia and Crimea, so it seems he had good reason to believe no-one would do anything and would turn a third blind eye. We did wrong, there.

 

[exchemist]

To be fair, re Putin, he had already annexed Georgia and Crimea, so it seems he had good reason to believe no-one would do anything and would turn a third blind eye. We did wrong, there.

Well, Putin has only occupied 2 smallish bits of Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A Russian Empire consisting of those plus Crimea is not exactly awe-inspiring. But yes he has, at great cost, got a few bits and pieces by military force.

 

[danieldemol]

I think a few points would be useful to note here:

I. The topic isn't really imperialist empires such as the British Empire; the main is about the voluntary union as we see with the EU; the initial US; the Pan-African Unions and perhaps more broadly things like the Islamic Ummah and the idea of Christendom, the latter of which has a head figure in some sense, whether it be the Pope, the Archbishop or the Ecumenical Patriarch etc.

What was voluntary about the Islamic Ummah or Christendom?

We can look at Rome here as the biggest by far of these. Rome in its later years was a kind of crystal that attracted various tribal groups who wanted to join, not decimate it. The Goths in all their forms, the Franks, the Saxons wanted to be part of it and you have figures like Odoacer becoming Emperor - he's a Germanic. This is voluntary but yes, somewhat fiery, whilst nevertheless being a group of people who were already Christianised (Arians) wanting to join, not plunder, Rome. Following this we see the Romanised and later Christianised Celtic nations of Gaul, Iberia, Britannia etc. which are looking to keep themselves part of Rome and desperately work to keep their Roman heritage when the Western Empire is clearly smouldering.

Sounds like you'd be a fan of the prosperity gospel, joining Rome in the hope of achieving Roman prosperity may have made sense from a materialistic perspective in ancient times, however in modern times we have better models for the prosperity of citizens which don't include slavery, throwing dissenters to the lions etc which allow a free-market of ideas in which the best ideas which bring the most prosperity are allowed to thrive.

This is where religion - being on the losing side of the free market of ideas - wants to step in and enforce empire. To describe it as anything less than imperialism is vanity.

This simply cannot really be compared to places like the US, which wish to invade and Americanise. This is not what Rome initially did, but even after they did their conquests became and stayed Roman.

So because Rome didn't initially do it we can't say Rome practiced imperialism? Please.

Also there are far from any guarantees that we wouldn't wind up with the likes of the Spanish empire that did seek to Christianise those it conquered such as south America.

Rome had the notion of Civitias and we see ancient figures like Paul who are both proudly Jewish and proudly Greek speaking Romans.

Paul's Rome was polytheistic not Christian. How would you like to be a citizen of a global polytheistic empire?

We must first analyse this phenomenon and the best place to replicate that has been the EU (members want to join and are part of a multi-ethnic, multilingual union that nevertheless they feel represents them) and the Pan-African Union etc.

Unions with voluntary membership are not invading forces that subjugate member states. As such if what you want is a union such as the EU ask for that instead of asking for an empire.

The EU, unlike the US and its territories, isn't ripping itself to bits. Even Brexit wasn't like that - Brexit happened democratically in a way that is actually illegal in the US for states to do.

It is the influence of conservative Christianity that is tearing apart the US, and it is conservative Catholics that most want an empire with them as its rulers.

II. This isn't about some aggressive empire-building

Horse poop, you can't have an empire without building one, and the way the Romans and all other empires did it was through military aggression.

This is people believing that their nations and economies will work best if consolidated into things like single markets and other trade agreements, as well as having overarching legislation that guarantees the same in every nation, whilst being able to be part of a shared legal system no matter which nation you're in

Again if what you want is that, you should be asking for that, not empire as they are not the same.

III. It can be compatible with democracy if you want it to be. Look at the various systems one finds in Europe alone - the UK with our Constitutional Monarch, the French Republique, the Swiss referendum system etc. There are many ways of doing things and if you want to combine democracy with a strong leader you can also do that.

Those things are necessities born of the need to transition away from dictatorship without going to war with the pre-existing ruling class. It is far from ideal to have a leader having multiple castles while the poor go homeless and as such should only be resorted to due to the pragmatic requirements of pre-existing situations. It should not be initiated in the absence of such considerations.

I don't think this is quite what a lot of folks think it is and 'empire' needs to become more nuanced a word. The EU is an empire

No it isn't.

but so was The Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans were tyrants and weak at the same time, and unable to guarantee the territorial integrity necessary to protect their own citizens.

IV. This is a fundamentally religious idea in many ways. It was a shared legal and religious system that brought the Israelite tribes together; it was a shared religious and legal system that brought Christian Europe together; it was a shared religious and legal system that brought the Islamic Ummah together. These people wanted this, believing it makes them more moral, closer together, stronger and more economically viable. It gives them a shared identity with shared values, beliefs and interests. It allows the various differing cultures to come together under one banner culture that holds them together instead of becoming warring tribes/states. It unifies their legal systems and senses of self.

**mod edit**

I believe that Abrahamic religion is fundamentally untrue, and that it is impossible for something which is fundamentally untrue to unite us globally​

I laugh at a united Christian Europe, what of war between the French, English, Spanish, germans, Russians etc? If you are referring to the EU Turkey is a part of it too so it is hardly Christianity which holds the EU together.

In my opinion.

 

[Rival]

What was voluntary about the Islamic Ummah or Christendom?


Sounds like you'd be a fan of the prosperity gospel, joining Rome in the hope of achieving Roman prosperity may have made sense from a materialistic perspective in ancient times, however in modern times we have better models for the prosperity of citizens which don't include slavery, throwing dissenters to the lions etc which allow a free-market of ideas in which the best ideas which bring the most prosperity are allowed to thrive.

This is where religion - being on the losing side of the free market of ideas - wants to step in and enforce empire. To describe it as anything less than imperialism is vanity.


So because Rome didn't initially do it we can't say Rome practiced imperialism? Please.

Also there are far from any guarantees that we wouldn't wind up with the likes of the Spanish empire that did seek to Christianise those it conquered such as south America.



Paul's Rome was polytheistic not Christian. How would you like to be a citizen of a global polytheistic empire?


Unions with voluntary membership are not invading forces that subjugate member states. As such if what you want is a union such as the EU ask for that instead of asking for an empire.


It is the influence of conservative Christianity that is tearing apart the US, and it is conservative Catholics that most want an empire with them as its rulers.


Horse poop, you can't have an empire without building one, and the way the Romans and all other empires did it was through military aggression.


Again if what you want is that, you should be asking for that, not empire as they are not the same.


Those things are necessities born of the need to transition away from dictatorship without going to war with the pre-existing ruling class. It is far from ideal to have a leader having multiple castles while the poor go homeless and as such should only be resorted to due to the pragmatic requirements of pre-existing situations. It should not be initiated in the absence of such considerations.


No it isn't.


The Ottomans were tyrants and weak at the same time, and unable to guarantee the territorial integrity necessary to protect their own citizens.


Abrahamic religion is fundamentally untrue, therefore expecting it to hold together global society is nothing but a pipe dream.

I laugh at a united Christian Europe, what of war between the French, English, Spanish, germans, Russians etc? If you are referring to the EU Turkey is a part of it too so it is hardly Christianity which holds the EU together.

In my opinion.

Turkey isn't part of the EU...

 

[danieldemol]

Turkey isn't part of the EU...

You are correct on Turkey not being part of the EU, however I think the EU is a sign of the weakening of Christianity, not because of it.
There is simply not enough co-operation between competing churches.

In my opinion.