Imperialism is great, no?

[BeBMan]

Sure, the whole expansion thing is kinda ****, esp. when you're one of the guys on the receiving end, but the inner constitution of a larger empire becomes usually one of stabilization and pacification even between lotsa different nations, religions, ethnicities etc. Like in the Roman empire.

Discuss.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That's pretty much on a par to saying rape is great because it feels nice for the rapist.

[BeBMan]

Assuming you have only peace-loving hippies at the borders of the evil empire who don't use war and violence as well. And the rapist usually doesn't care about his victims afterwards. Sure you can always make the point that conquest etc is bad (and I wouldn't defend it), but still empires like those of the Persians, Romans etc. were more then simple war machines, and integrated many of their former enemies quite well.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Imperialism is great, no?

Originally posted by BeBro
but the inner constitution of a larger empire becomes usually one of stabilization and pacification even between lotsa different nations, religions, ethnicities etc. Like in the Roman empire.

I agree with you with one argument, that in order to maintain peace within the empire the rulers need to either find enemies outside of the empire, whithin the empire, or both.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Imperialism is great, no?

Originally posted by BeBro
... Like in the Roman empire.

A better example would be the British Empire. Where would the U.S.A. be without it. We'd still be on foot, chasing buffalo across the plains.

Of course, they did try to make us drink tea instead of good old American coffee. So we had to shoot them.

[BeBMan]

Maybe I'm idealizing the ancient guys a bit but I'd be much more critical to the post-1500 types of imperialism with those vast colonial empires. I just don't see how the big colonial powers really integrated those from African or Asian colonies successfully into their own population in the way for example Romans did manage to deal with their former enemies in many cases (and finally giving out the status as Roman citizen to all free inhabitants of the empire).

US doesn't count IMO since the colonials here weren't really natives that had to be integrated in a completely different political and cultural environment since they already had (often) a cultural background similar (or even the same) to those from the colonial powers when they arrived in the new world.

[molly bloom]

Tacitus:

Atque ubi colitudinum faciunt pacem apellant.

-They make a desert and they call it peace.

The Roman Empire in action in Britannia: Nero (!) of all emperors, recalled the Roman military leader in Britain who had been 'pacifying' the country after Boudicca's defeat because of his extreme violence.

Consider that Gallic Celtic civilization was on the way to making settled city and town sized centres before it was destroyed in Caesar's wars. That Dacian civilization was 'Romanized' because the Dacians had gold.

And we all know about the Jewish Diaspora...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

They didn't do a great job of assimiliating Carthage either.

[BeBMan]

OK, so it's

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
OK, so it's

Everyone loves Imperialism, but they don't call it that. They call it freedom and democracy.

[Patroklos]

Consider that Gallic Celtic civilization was on the way to making settled city and town sized centres before it was destroyed in Caesar's wars.

Hardly, the only thing in store for the Gauls without Roman intervention when it happened was being conquered and subjugated by the Germanic tribes. It had actually already started (Ariovistis).

[Felch]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Consider that Gallic Celtic civilization was on the way to making settled city and town sized centres before it was destroyed in Caesar's wars.

What's your source on this? I'm familiar with what Caesar wrote (he attributed the most civilized Gauls with being civilized by proximity to Rome) but I haven't seen any contemporary primary sources other than that.

[Felch]

As far as the OP, it has some truth in it. There are always tradeoffs, but empires tended to provide stability, promote trade, and allow an exchange of ideas that wouldn't have been possible if every extended family in the world was still killing each other over stolen livestock.

I don't feel like finding a source this instant, but I remember reading that tribal societies in New Guinea had some truly horrific wars that claimed something like 1% of the total population per year, and would stretch on for decades.

[Eli]

I cannot disagree with the concept of spreading Civilization. If another giant continent full of hunter-gatherers and resources had appeared today, I would've firmly supported it's conquest and colonization. And if it's necessary to fool a few natives and buy tracts of land in exchange for a mirror... Well, life sucks.

Naturally, I also cannot support the original genocidal methods employed by European empires.

[BeBMan]

So you support genocidal methods employed by non-Europeans