history has seen many empires.
these empires have done a variety of nasty things and temporarily benefitted.
my question is:
were the empires held accountable for their misdeeds when they collapsed?
(my question is not intended to relate to the u.s., many other threads address this ad nauseum, i would like to please stick strictly to history and learn what has happened in the past.)
lets get started with my little knowledge of history, i am keen to learn more:
ww1 germany severe economic punishment until ww2.
nazi germany severe imediate beating at the hands of their enemies. some war-criminal prosecutions occurred, but many of the worst war-ciminals escaped prosecution. post war west germany was extremely affluent, with the likes of bmw, mercedes and volkswagen accepted worldwide - even by jewish people!
colonial england - no retribution
spain - no retribution
napoleonic france - no retribution
portugal - no retribution
ancient rome - no retribution
ancient greece - no retribution
ancient egypt - no retribution
suharto indonesia - suharto may face individual prosecution.
Originally posted by flexmoreWell, let's see how they collapsed:
ancient rome - no retribution
ancient greece - no retribution
ancient egypt - no retribution[/b]
Ancient Egypt: conquered by Alexander
Alexander's empire: split into several pieces, most of which were eventually conquered by the Romans
Roman Empire: Western empire dismembered by principally Germanic tribes, who set up their own kingdoms in its place, eg France. Eastern Empire gradually lost control of its outlying provinces for various reasons (eg I think the Republic of Venice was descended from a Byzantine province), with the heartland of the Empire eventually conquered by the Turks. The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire considered themselves the successors of the Roman Emperors, so you could say the Roman Empire only ceased to be in 1918 - the terms the Turks got then were NOT generous and would have seen most of Anatolia under Greek or Italian control.
I would imagine the conquerors extracted all the 'retribution' they wanted!
colonial england - no retributionCan you clarify Flex- are you suggesting that there should be retribution? Prosecuting dictators and war criminals is one thing, but let's say you just happened to be born in Germany in the late 20's. You've gone through a dictatorship and a war as a child and now you're coming of age amidst devastation. You've lead a hard enough life already. Should your life be made any harder because someone thinks they need to seek retribution against the nation you've had the misfortune of being born into? You can strive to make things right in the present, but seeking vengance on a nation as a whole is an example of the same wrong headed thinking that gave rise to the bullying empires in the first place.
spain - no retribution
napoleonic france - no retribution
portugal - no retribution
ancient rome - no retribution
ancient greece - no retribution
ancient egypt - no retribution
Can you clarify Flex- are you suggesting that there should be retribution? Prosecuting dictators and war criminals is one thing, but let's say you just happened to be born in Germany in the late 20's. You've gone through a dictatorship and a war as a child and now you're coming of age amidst devastation. You've lead a hard enough life already. Should your life be made any harder because someone thinks they need to seek retribution against the nation you've had the misfortune of being born into? You can strive to make things right in the present, but seeking vengance on a nation as a whole is an example of the same wrong headed thinking that gave rise to the bullying empires in the first place.
Punishments are not used properly if they are administered because people 'deserve it' - they are to make clear that there will be negative consequences if the same action is done again. The first can motivate the second, but only the second is useful. So, punishing a nation for it's past misdeeds only works if it will keep it, or someone else, from doing the same again.
There is a difference, I think, between empires that endure for hundreds of years such as Rome or Egypt, and those that last less than a generation like Nazi Germany or the Napoleonic Empire. In the latter case it may make sense to punish the individuals responsible. I don't think that there is a case to be made for punishing a nation as a whole to discourage future megalomaniacs. The practice of punishing defeated nations by forcing "reparations" has helped build more empires than it discouraged. The harsh peace settlement imposed on Germany after WWI, which was largely justified as a means of curbing Gemany's future imperial ambitions, is widely blamed for the rise of Nazism. After WWII it recieved economic assistance and today is one of the most stable and reasonable nations in the world.
Originally posted by flexmoreWhat if the good that the Empire does balances some of the bad?
lets get started with my little knowledge of history, i am keen to learn more:
[b]ww1 germany severe economic punishment until ww2.
nazi germany severe imediate beating at the hands of their enemies. some war-criminal prosecutions occurred, but many of the worst war-ciminals escaped prosecution. post war west germany was extremely affluent, w ...[text shortened]... egypt[/b] - no retribution
suharto indonesia - suharto may face individual prosecution.[/b]
What the Romans did for us: roads, law and order, etc.
Although a lot of the Empires did some brutally nasty stuff, it was usually in a brutally nasty era. Often they were driven by belief that they were doing some good : civilising the barbarians, etc.
Originally posted by Skorji am not suggesting what i think should happen (i can do that elsewhere if you like)
Can you clarify Flex- are you suggesting that there should be retribution? Prosecuting dictators and war criminals is one thing, but let's say you just happened to be born in Germany in the late 20's. You've gone through a dictatorship and a war as a child and now you're coming of age amidst devastation. You've lead a hard enough life already. Should you ...[text shortened]... e of the same wrong headed thinking that gave rise to the bullying empires in the first place.
i am interested in knowing what has happened.
your comments add insight as to why some empires may have never suffered retribution during and after their collapse.
do you know of specific examples?
Originally posted by Acolytethanks for some details of some collapses.
Well, let's see how they collapsed:
Ancient Egypt: conquered by Alexander
Alexander's empire: split into several pieces, most of which were eventually conquered by the Romans
Roman Empire: Western empire dismembered by principally Germanic tribes, who set up their own kingdoms in its place, eg France. Eastern Empire gradually lost control of its outl ...[text shortened]... talian control.
I would imagine the conquerors extracted all the 'retribution' they wanted!
thanks also for your imagination with regard to retribution,
do you know any solid facts with regard to the latter?
the conquerors may well have had no desire to extract retribution: it may not have been in their own best interest.
can it be that they, as modern empires seem to do, used the people in powerful positions as centres for their retribution - and the general population is ignored?
Originally posted by flexmoreI'm not certain, but I think in the ancient history mentioned they would either kill the leaders or insist that they swear to the invaders, i.e. subjugation.
thanks for some details of some collapses.
thanks also for your imagination with regard to retribution,
do you know any solid facts with regard to the latter?
the conquerors may well have had no desire to extract retribution: it may not have been in their own best interest.
can it be that they, as modern empires seem to do, used the people in powerful positions as centres for their retribution - and the general population is ignored?
When conquering another nation it is always easier to use as much of the existing political structure as possible to retain control of the populace, they would have to have good reason not to, and there, perhaps, lies some retribution to be found if you do the research.
However I think you'll find that empires themselves typically collapse for two reasons, one is that others become possesive of what the empire has. That's how the roman empire fell, helped along by it's own internal problems. Therefore acountability and retribution were not on the agenda, greed was.
The other reason is due to subjugation, a nation desires freedom from outside control. India freeing itself of british rule for example. However it's rare that that involves conquering the conquerors themselves, I certainly cant think of any example. So again, retribution and acountability dont typically take place.
MÅ¥HÅRM
I have a slight alteration to the Egyptians decline: my handy dandy Western Civ book states that the Egyptian "empire" ended in the thirteenth century with the invasions of the "Sea Peoples." This pushed thier borders back to within thier fontiers. Just being nit picky🙂 The conquest of Alexander the Great was a mere thousand years later. In the mean time Egypt was dominated by other cultures.
Originally posted by flexmoreThe USSR collapsed because of over expenditure on it's military. The same could happen to other countries.
history has seen many empires.
these empires have done a variety of nasty things and temporarily benefitted.
my question is:
[b]were the empires held accountable for their misdeeds when they collapsed?
(my question is not intended to relate to the u.s., many other threads address this ad nauseum, i would like to please stick strictly to history and learn what has happened in the past.)[/b]
Originally posted by flexmoreTo say whether empires were held accountable you have to define what you mean by this.
history has seen many empires.
these empires have done a variety of nasty things and temporarily benefitted.
my question is:
[b]were the empires held accountable for their misdeeds when they collapsed?
(my question is not intended to relate to the u.s., many other threads address this ad nauseum, i would like to please stick strictly to history and learn what has happened in the past.)[/b]
Do you mean:-
1. The leaders were prosecuted or penalised in some way?
2. That History recorded them as a bad thing?
3. That the people in the empire suffered?
Empires are massive collective things and it very hard to hold them 'accountable'
Surely the very fact they fall is the way they are held accountable. If you compare it to an individual and individual is imprisioned or killed and thus held ultimately accountable by ceasing to be effective.
The same happens to empires. When they collapse all the penalties are vented on them, their leaders and their people.
Apart from that the only other way I can concieve is that history records them as a bad thing. But the fact most view the Nazi empire as a bad thing historically is that really holding them as accountable particularly as history is recorded by the victors on the whole.