Chinese saying: "the mountains are high, and the Emperor is far away" （山高帝遠）
Russian saying: be further from higher ups, closer to the kitchen (подальше от начальства, поближе к кухне)
How transportation technologies shaped empires
191–200 of 313 posts
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#192That's not true, as evidenced by many, many empires, past and present (Spanish, British, Roman, American) that spanned more than a month of travel. What they're trying to say is that the span of control is limited by the ability to project power/information to the extremities of the empire. That makes sense, but the way they measure the limits is wrong. The way the empires get around this problem is by putting people…
Empires that expand beyond the 30 day travel limit tend to fizzle out and crumble.
Today, of course, we travel the whole planet roughly 30 times in that time frame. So it's not a limit on Earth anymore. But it was definitely a problem for all previous empires. The ones you listed prove the point. They all crumbled when they expanded too far.
The reason is kinda obvious: If it takes 30 days to travel, it takes 60 days to travel there and back. Which means there is, at minimum, a 60 day delay between the start of a rebellion or war and your ability to respond to it. That's assuming you were ready for the news the moment you got it. Good luck with that.
It's just one of many reasons why wars are won more by logistics than bullets.
So I think it raises two really interesting questions:
(1) Here on Earth, the elimination of this limit is pretty recent. Should we anticipate an empire that spans the globe truly taking over? (No need to sarcastically comment about America today.)
(2) How does this impact space travel? Based on current and foreseeable technology, there's no planet we can regularly reach in that amount of time, because at any given time, the other planet could be on the other side of the solar system. Can we really colonize new areas if we can't reach them faster than 30 days? Maybe we can. Communication is nearly instant (relatively speaking), and there are no enemy combatants to deal with. But they'll still be stuck on their own if any unforeseen emergencies arise. Those never happen, right? Would we most likely see the formation of a new nation on each planet we colonize?
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you take Russian Empire/USSR for example, most of the territories which have been lost are much closer to Moscow (Ukraine, Poland, Finland, Belarus, Georgia etc.) than the territories still under Moscow control (Siberia), so at least in the Russia's case, it's not about transportation at all.
Siberia is kind of its own exception, though. I’d say they managed to keep Siberia - for reasons solely to do with Siberia - despite how bad they were at keeping the empire together, relatively speaking.
It's just that Siberia is predominantly populated by ethnic Russians and USSR did not succeed in growing any regional identity there.
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a funny definition of ‘not killed’ you’re using.
They died, but they were indeed not killed. You may say something flowery like "the diseases killed them", or "the arrival of the Brits killed them", but the British empire or its subjects did not kill the vast, vast majority of Native North Americans who died as a consequence of their arrival.
Well, news outlets are perfectly comfortable with saying that this or that COVID policy "killed" millions and will kill even more... If only the British instituted lockdowns, quarantine, and mass testing for diseases, the Native Americans could have lived!
(Not saying this is the right perspective, but I understand why people would argue for it, especially when using ahistorical lens of today's diseases handling)
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#195I feel like there's some cherry picking going on. I mean, issues with germanic tribes and inland conquests did play a role but... what about upper egypt, paetrea, britannia, etc. The edge of the empire was the edge of the empire... with frontier problems. Why did germania fail, but not those other ones. I mean size is an issue. Travel & messaging are issues. Empires are very much defined by these things, etc. I just…
you are all wrong people,
Roman legions were co posed of Roman citizens, they had to procure their own sword and shield, and could be called up to serve.
As the Roman empire grew, they captured many slaves and territory. Wealthy romans could buy up slaves and land. They accumulated large holsings farmed by slaves and could outcompete ordinary romans in agricultural production.
This was a problem because they were bacrupting the very same people who formed the legions. All the legionairs would recoeve for their military success, was increasing poverty.
This led to decreasing quality of troops and political instability
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Drunk the cool aid..." In the UK case I've heard the idea that the Publc School system emerged for exactly this reason. ('Public' schools being the most elite schools in the UK). A relatively small number of schools shaped a class of people who all thought in exactly the same way, so they would behave predictably even when far away and in a new context. Public schools, are not coincidentally noted for a focus on 'pl…
> Not to mention never breaking your word. You surely jest. A substantial proportion of British politicians, on the right mostly, were educated at public schools. They don't all have a shining record when it comes to integrity and honesty. Twenty one (I think) of Britain's prime ministers went to Eton including Johnson and Cameron. Are we to believe that those two scoundrels are exceptions?
Johnson and Cameron hardly led the Empire.
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada. Is it though? England did lose Canada to home-rule. In fact, I contend that a major reason why a newly independent (but also broke and fledgling) Canada was not annexed by the US was mainly because of the American preoccupation with civil war and Reconstruction, and the diplomatic efforts of John A. Macdonald.
Canada was still subject to the legal authority of the UK parliament until 1982, and was certainly considered fully part of the British Empire until WWI
Canada was essentially independent since WWI.
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#198That's not true, as evidenced by many, many empires, past and present (Spanish, British, Roman, American) that spanned more than a month of travel. What they're trying to say is that the span of control is limited by the ability to project power/information to the extremities of the empire. That makes sense, but the way they measure the limits is wrong. The way the empires get around this problem is by putting people…
History of Empire, History of Travel Technology, and History of Communications Technology are huuuuge fields with tons of professionals working today. I'm a little concerned about huge claims being made about empire by a Stanford MBA and a community of people mostly experienced in software and tech. The historians would love for you to read their books! AHA is literally happening right now ! Go to bars in Philly and…
You don't even need to talk to someone. Pick up any book on European colonialism, the Roman Empire, Japanese imperialism, Chinese Imperial dynasties, medieval South Asia, pre-Islamic Persian empires, etc etc. Reddit's r/askhistorians is a great reference for sources on the more popular topics.
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we forget about the existence of the control case: Canada. Is it though? England did lose Canada to home-rule. In fact, I contend that a major reason why a newly independent (but also broke and fledgling) Canada was not annexed by the US was mainly because of the American preoccupation with civil war and Reconstruction, and the diplomatic efforts of John A. Macdonald.
Canada was still subject to the legal authority of the UK parliament until 1982, and was certainly considered fully part of the British Empire until WWI
I think the article was discussing actual facts-on-the-ground empires, rather than polite legal fictions invented to spare the UK from having to face their loss of global status.
Re: How transportation technologies shaped empires
#200I feel like there's some cherry picking going on. I mean, issues with germanic tribes and inland conquests did play a role but... what about upper egypt, paetrea, britannia, etc. The edge of the empire was the edge of the empire... with frontier problems. Why did germania fail, but not those other ones. I mean size is an issue. Travel & messaging are issues. Empires are very much defined by these things, etc. I just…
Barbarism is certainly a factor in the Roman expansion into Germania, but if you look at how the Romans were able to colonize Gaul completely. I think originally they thought they could follow the same playbook into both Germania and Britain. Britain was never full pacified and required a large occupation force to keep the province under control. After the defeat of Varus during the reign of Augustus, I think Roman l…
Idk...
Lots of conquests were hard, but time did them. Then they put down rebellions as necessary.
I think the difference was that there was no way for time to "win" as they we used to. No palace to install governors in. No temple to place Roman statues in.
How do twin? What do you win when you win? Rome wasn't after a tax base or plantations for cash crops. They were after a tax base. Most of their empire consisted of territories that had all these things for yonks. They had been conquered by many empires and knew the drill. Britannia and Germania did not.