The Nature of Empire

The Americans are a very lucky people. They’re bordered to the north and south by weak neighbours, and to the west and east by fish. – Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), a Prussian statesman, diplomat, lawyer and writer who served as the Kingdom of Prussia’s Minister-President (1873-1890) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1872-1890), through which he masterminded the unification of Germany into the German Empire (1871-1918), after which he served as its first Chancellor (1871-1890), in the capacity of which he dominated European affairs for over two decades

Any Nation that seeks to ascend to the status of Empire, regardless of their system of government or the ruling ideology, will invariably only achieve this status by establishing itself as Empire under at least one of the following three requirements, as without them, there is no purpose behind the Empire’s existence and so there is no reason for it to exist, thus ensuring that the reason/s for which the Empire was established, in turn, serve to define The Nature of the Empire in question. As such, without successfully maintaining at least one of these three reasons at all times, the cost of maintaining the Empire will, in due course, inevitably result in its collapse – particularly in a system of governance where the leadership can be held accountable for its spending practices:

⦁ Defense: to protect the Heartland from a powerful enemy, or enemies
⦁ Exploitation: to exploit local resources, either Natural or Human in nature
⦁ Ideology: to spread a religious faith or a socio-political system of governance

Likewise, an Empire, once established, must not only achieve stability by achieving a balance between achieving territorial expansion without territorial overstretch even as it seeks to secure the resources necessary for its own self-sustainment, but it must also continuously abide by either its founding doctrine or successfully adjust to a different one in order to maintain itself and to succeed in continuously justifying its existence, as failure to do so will unquestionably result in the Empire’s decline and eventual downfall.

Furthermore, depending on which of the aforementioned conditions serve to define The Nature of the Empire in question, the remaining forces in the world will either aggravate towards or away from it, to varying degrees. That is to say, an Empire for Ideology will either be fiercely opposed, or ardently allied with and defended; an Empire for Defense may inadvertently trigger escalations with the force/s they seek to defend against and an Empire for Exploitation may serve to create positive trade relations with other powers, or may find itself needing to adjust its Nature to achieve a defensive nature due to growing discontent either from within or from without, as its growing strength becomes a cause for concern to its neighbouring powers, either at home in the Heartland, or abroad in the Colonies.

Though each form of Empire has its respective strengths and weaknesses, Empires for Defense are quite possibly one of the two most and least malleable forms that an Empire may need to assume, as though they can only last insofar as the enemy they are enacted to fight against also lasts, their system of alliances tend to contain the flexibility needed to be torn down and rebuilt at will, allowing for an ever-evolving foreign policy – unless, of course, the political class of the Empire insists on holding on to old enmities and alliances even after the threat has passed, in which case the Empire’s underlying structure will begin to suffer as a consequence, to the benefit of any potential new enemy, or enemies, as the Empire is not adjusting accordingly, in order to counter these new ascendant threats.

Empires of Exploitation are the other of the two most malleable forms that an Empire may assume, as its endurance is ultimately dependant on its relationship with the lands and territories it controls; if the relationship is at least perceived to be equal, rather than being obviously outright exploitative, such as if the local rulers are not seeing fit to actively exploit the local populace and in turn the local populace’s quality of life is at least improving at a relatively steady pace as a consequence of the Empire, then the Empire has a far better chance of containing and / or otherwise tackling any resentment and enmity against the status-quo. Empires of Ideology, on the other hand, find themselves almost-completely at the mercy of the status-quo, for if the ideology fades or collapses, the Empire’s raison d’etre also inevitably disappears, as a consequence.

Needless to say, the more reasons an Empire has to exist, the better the chances are of it achieving long-term continuity. For example, ever since the Spanish Armada attempted and failed to attack the Kingdom of England in 1588, the English government has always sought to maintain a standing Balance of Power throughout the European Continent between the various states present throughout it, so as to prevent any one Great Power (particularly a naval one) from growing strong enough to be able to attack them once again. The Spanish Monarchy’s strength, however, flowed from its overseas colonial Empire that was built on exploitation, though the Spanish Inquisition also added a layer of ideology to their exploits as they sought to convert the native Amerindians to Christianity.

Nevertheless, despite the near-constant state of war in one region or another throughout the region, trade between the European Powers has endured throughout the centuries with almost no exception, as the threat that they posed to each other was never perceived as existential, permitting for there to be steady and ongoing trade relations over the centuries – at least, until Napoleon – though trade relations did ultimately resume, in the aftermath of the Bourbon Restoration in 1814.

Likewise, when the Western Allies founded NATO in 1949 as a defensive measure against the perceived post-war threat emanating from the Soviet Union, this measure in turn prompted the establishment of the Warsaw Pact by the Eastern Bloc to counteract its significant strength and maintain a successful balance of power between the two Superpower Blocs throughout the ensuing decades that came to be defined as the Cold War, with both groups seeking to ultimately ensure the defense of their ideology from the other, as both perceived the other to be an existential threat to themselves, prompting them to have very little relations in terms of trade and diplomacy with each other, beyond the bare necessities necessary to maintain the post-war status-quo throughout Europe.

Furthermore, it is always worth remembering that despite the propaganda narratives surrounding them, most African colonies were generally run at either a permanent or near-permanent deficit; this situation was particularly true in the case of France, whose Sub-Saharan colonies were a net drain on the Heartland’s resources, even as the polar opposite stood true of Britain’s colonies, which were filled to the brim with natural resources, but which were being actively exploited by the British government, thus eventually driving them to seek secession from the choking grasp of the British Empire, which in turn brought about the collapse of Britain’s vaunted Empire.

In contrast, the cost of Empire is also why Britain, unlike America in the 20th century, has never attempted to invade and hold land on the European Continent since the end of the Hundred Years’ War in 1453; because to do so would be very costly for them, while ensuring no real conceivable benefit to the British Heartland, as continual pacification would require them to continuously invest a fortune in terms of both human and natural resources, for an at best, indeterminate benefit. By contrast, organised diplomatic and military assaults intended only to maintain the Balance of Power between the Great Powers were far more manageable and justifiable expenses – at least, from the historical British perspective.

Examples of the Natures of Empires throughout history:
⦁ The Achaemenid Empire: defense and exploitation
⦁ The Delian League (Athenian Empire): defense (nominally) and exploitation
⦁ The Qin and Han Empires (China): defense
⦁ The Roman Republic/Empire: defense, exploitation and ideology
⦁ The Arab Caliphates: ideology
⦁ The Eastern Roman Empire: defense of ideology
⦁ The Mongol Empire: exploitation
⦁ The Russian Empire: defense, exploitation
⦁ The Ottoman Sultanate: ideology
⦁ The Spanish Empire: exploitation and ideology
⦁ The First British Empire (America): exploitation
⦁ The French League of the Rhine: defense
⦁ The United States’ Manifest Destiny: exploitation, ideology, defense
⦁ The First French Empire (Napoleon): defense and ideology
⦁ The Japanese Empire: exploitation and defense
⦁ The Second German Empire (Bismarck): defense. In the post-Bismarck era, the German High Command and the Kaiser switched over to exploitation, leading to the outbreak of the First World War.
⦁ The European Colonial Empires (various): exploitation and ideology
⦁ The Third German Empire (Hitler): exploitation and ideology
⦁ The American NATO and Soviet Warsaw Pact Empires: defense of ideology

It is here that we are now presented with the very reasons why Rome, which expanded outwards in pursuit of creating an Empire with which to protect its Heartland (defense) and in turn ensure it held the greatest amount of power possible in the region so as to more securely protect that Heartland (exploitation), ultimately opted to voluntarily withdraw from the provinces of Britannia and Dacia, as the accrued benefits in economic value from holding on to these areas did not outweigh the cost of defending them. Even 2,000 years ago, the Romans understood that an overstretched Empire is weak and vulnerable, whereas an Empire that has spread itself out just far enough to achieve an easily defensible buffer which allows it to safely maintain the resources needed to sustain a standing security force at the frontier, is ultimately capable of protecting its Heartland against any and all major opposing power/s, truly for even a thousand years. It is for these very reasons that in truth, the old adage of “expand or die” that has for so long been applied to the Romans, does not, in truth, actually apply.

In fact, the Roman State, (in both its initial Republican and later Imperial forms) as well as its successor, the Eastern Roman Empire, are both perfect examples of an Empire successfully maintaining its stability over the course of centuries, until such time as their frontiers collapsed and the Heartland was made vulnerable. The Eastern Roman Empire in particular had a fascinating “division of labour” between its four major territories in the early centuries of its existence, in that Egypt provided the wheat needed to feed the Empire’s troops and citizenry, the Levant provided for trade through its major ports and geographical location between the West and the East, Anatolia provided the backbone of the Empire’s military recruits (particularly after the 7th century) and the Balkans hosted dozens of urban centres which served as the Empire’s cultural centre (though these later collapsed following the Slavic Migrations). It was only after the Empire, under Emperor Justinian I, sought to expand Westward in the 6th century in pursuit of reclaiming past glories and “reuniting” the two halves under one administration, that it became overextended and subsequently began to contract, even as in the meanwhile, its historically unstable eastern frontier came under attack from the ascendant Islamic Caliphates in the aftermath of the extremely devastating war against the Sassanids between the years 602-628, A.D.

Now, with all this being said, there is another very important dimension necessary for the long-term endurance of Empire that must be discussed and stressed, with that being the matter of administration, which, far more than anything else, is ultimately key to the successful maintenance of Empire; good administration, even if in the form of a benevolent dictatorship, will result in the Empire’s development, resulting in stability, resulting in its continuity. Bad administration, even if under an elected administration, will result in the Empire’s decline, leading to instability and eventually, its collapse; once again, Britain’s Empire serves as a prime example of this, as their greatest failure has continually been their refusal to grant Home Rule to their greatest assets; the North American Colonies in the 1780s, the British Raj throughout the 1900s and even Ireland itself, throughout the 1800s. Had this simple condition been fulfilled, Britain’s relationship with these areas would not have resulted in them all in turn ultimately seeking to secede from the Empire.

On the other hand, America maintains its Empire across the North American mainland by establishing political equality between the States and maintaining an active system of financial redistribution across those States; for ultimately, the American Republic is not a Nation-State in the classical sense as we see in Europe, but rather, it is built as a Perpetual Union of States, as its very founding documents establish. It is because of this that despite its internal discords, it successfully maintains itself through the balancing acts it conducts between its various constituent member-states and will very likely successfully continue to do so (for example, the standing equal representation in the Upper House of the Legislative of two Senators per-State regardless of their population sizes and the Electoral College system for electing the Executive). In other words, every American State is a part of the Imperial Heartland, in its own way; some are net financial contributors to this arrangement, others are net benefactors, but ultimately, every State is in agreement that this arrangement is worth maintaining, which is what allows the American Union to be a functional version of of Empire, in its own right. America’s problems with Empire only begin to emerge when this standing Empire attempts to expand beyond its North American Heartland by crossing its vast Ocean-moats into the Eurasian World Island, as it becomes far more difficult to justify the maintenance of an Overseas Empire that provides no directly-perceived benefits to the American public – particularly in times of difficult socio-economic circumstances.

Curiously, at times, in the waning days of the Empire, the Imperial Power may seek to maintain its grip over strategically or culturally-valuable areas close to the Nation’s Heart as part of a surviving National Narrative (Nationalism), as is the case of the remaining nations that form the United Kingdom and its assorted overseas holdings. Generally, there is likely to be significant public support (or at least apathy, rather than active opposition) for such endeavours as a consequence of their nature, despite the associated costs that make these areas otherwise fundamentally worthless to hold on to. And yet, in other cases, the post-Imperial State is simply unwilling to complete decolonisation and believes that the costs of the remaining territories can be “contained” enough or otherwise “justified” in order to maintain some minor holdings, as the locals have either limited or no desires at all to pursue independence from the nation in question, as is largely the case with both Britain’s and France’s remaining overseas territorial holdings.

Nevertheless, even in these cases, if there are standing competing claims over these areas or even just geographical factors that present a standing obstacle to their further development or the long-term maintenance of these holdings, there will inevitably, eventually arise a faction of the State that, for whatever personal reasons and beliefs, will seek to remove this weight from the shoulders of the Nation and with time, will, eventually, inevitably, succeed. The only way such movements can be averted, is if the areas in question could, for whatever reason, simply not function as independent nations, thus making the status-quo perpetually favourable, or if they simply would not benefit from being ceded off to another nation, in whatever way/s. Otherwise, decolonisation is simply inevitable.

After all, at the end of the day, if the costs cannot be justified, the populace will inevitably come to question the value of maintaining the costly Empire, which in turn will create pressures onto the political class to attempt to justify the standing expenses; an inability to justify those expenses will not be tolerated in a democratic society. Hence, why America’s overseas Empire is in a state of immutable, terminal decline; because there are simply far more pressing domestic issues to address, instead.