I’d first like to thank everyone for the wonderful comments and trackbacks on the first part of this series. I’ve noted the good questions and taken time to incorporate them and their respective answers into my writing. This has always been one of the fantastic parts of ComingAnarachy. While the content is mostly driven by Curzon, Younghusband and I, our readers are always there to quickly correct, question and suggest, which often leads us to reconsider our positions or at least rethink in order to answer the questions and meet the challenges. It is truly a fabulous means of communication and intellectual collaboration. Thanks!
The History of Empires II
In order to better support my thesis that empires are natural and positive developments which have proven to be the best method of protecting and promoting globalization, I shall now delve a bit deeper into the history in order to support a sub-thesis, that empires always coincide with “the” or “a” core. The methods surrounding its creation are what should be discussed and debated, not the thing itself. By imposing a forced peace and increasing and their “system coverage,” they promote stability and increase the four vital flows of globalization, thus having had an overall positive effect on world history. After touching on the history of empires, their characteristics and the cultural characteristics that made them successful, I’ll finally provide a preliminary definition of 2nd Generation Empire.
A Quick History of Globalization
Before continuing with my arguments, I’d like to first outline the history of globalization according to Thomas Barnett:
Globalization I: 1870 – 1914
Globalization II: 1945 – 1980
Globalization III: 1980- Present
Although Barnett begins with the industrial revolution, many previous periods in history were characterized by mini-globalizations, or regionalizations. The industrial revolution is what enabled regional and intra-empire integration to expand to a global scale. However, it’s not completely accurate to being our tale in 1870. I’ll begin with a short outline of various historical empires based mostly on importance but I also threw in a few others in order to represent more of the globe. Click the image for the full size version.
For additional reference, I drew up a graphic version of a chart of the historical superpowers by Joseph Nye.
The three main arguments supporting my thesis that empires are inevitable as well as positive are as follows:
1) Empires are always founded by successful countries/cultures
Success means having either superior technology, a superior rule set, or both. For example, the Mongols policies were responsible for their success, they did not invent the technology they introducted but rather spread the achievements of regions within their empire to all the others. Additionaly, they placed a high value on work, technology and liberal ruling (liberal for their time).
2) Thus, they spread technology, development and stability (often through overwhelming force)
As stated above, they may introduce their own technology, spread that of other regions of their empire, or both.
3) They began globalization periods and always make up a or the core.
In the past, as mentioned, these periods could better categorized as regionalization as competing empires did not interact much with eachother and operated as separate parallel systems.
From a utilitarian point of view, empires have ultimately done considerable good for the world at large and as the saying goes, you can’t make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. While possible to go far deeper into the individual histories of the various empires represented, I rather wanted to present an easily digestible graphical overview in order to keep this already long piece blog/bite sized.
What is a 2nd Generation Empire?
The answer you’ve all been waiting for. What exactly is a 2nd generation empire? Thus we must first ask, what were past empires characterized by? For clarity’s sake, I shall now give them in list form:
– Empire initially created by forceful incorporation of smaller states by bigger ones into a political union– Primary method of unity of state was military force
– Military stationed throughout in order to prevent secession
– Under the rule of some form of monarchy (or sometimes oligarchy)
– State or empire is multiethnic and often multi-religious (at least in the beginning)
– Incorporated regions used for resources and/or to settle
– Created its own “core” which usually did not overlap with that of other empires
– Competed with other empires for actual control of new markets
– Overall political, cultural, economic and legal participation involuntary
– Cultural, economic and religious influence used intentionally to create cohesion
– Often characterized by enforcement of maximum rule-sets
I firstly invite readers to revise or add to this list. The word “empire” today has become rather unclear and used by different people with different agendas, each injecting his own meaning into it.
First of all, why the term 2nd Generation Empire? Various terms such as Neo-imperialism, Empire and Sphere of Influence all need to be taken into account. I chose the word generation, instead of neo or new, because neoimperialism not only has its own meaning already, it also has been polluted by different people/groups using it for their own agendas. Secondly, generation better conveys the idea of evolution and development. I’d like to break 2GE’s down into three parts: Economic, Cultural and Political/Legal.Economic
We’ve seen above the many characteristics of empires of the past, so what do 2GE’s look like? Perhaps most importantly, instead of military force being the most important force which then supports the economic and political/legal, roles have been reversed. Force has clearly taken the backseat whereas economics has taken the driver’s seat. Military might waits in the background always ready to protect the “economic empire” unlike systems of the past which used the military to force a political and then economic union. Additionally, participation in this economic empire, which should rather be seen as a network, is voluntary, again in contrast to the past and most importantly, previously parallel systems now intersect and are no longer exclusive.
Political/Legal
With the increase in economic connectivity between nation-states, the political and legal system of each respective state becomes important. In order to promote stability and trust, both vital for business to take place, rules often need be imported. The continual importation of rules and adjustment thereof lead to an evergrowing network that will begin to look like an empire in certain respects. Yet, to use a simple metaphor, in order for networks to communicate and exchange people, energy, goods, etc, they must speak the same “language” which often leads to the adoption of the “language” of the more successful trading partner. Again, this is voluntary and simply a necessary precursor for successful business.
As for the political side, countries may find common ground in similar political systems or history. Though India and the US seem a world apart, they are the world’s largest democracies and thus have a great deal of common ground through which they can work together. Ties may also be broader with the European Union being a great example of a rising 2GE.
Cultural
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of 2GE’s is soft power, primarily in the form of cultural influence. This refers to the attractiveness of the country’s culture in the broadest sense (organization of society, customs and traditions, arts like film and music, etc). Though previously cultural as well as economic soft power was called a Sphere of Influence or SOI, they referred to geographical regions near the state. Today, a country thousands of miles away may be more influenced by Country X than its physical neighbor is.
Cultural influence is derived from many things. Some of it has its roots in overt European imperialism and their leftovers whether linguistic, legal or other. Others may result from occupation such as that of Germany and Japan after WWII and yet others may have nothing to do with previous colonization or war and may be completely voluntary acceptance. You can find American movies, music, fashion, words and ideas on on every continent of the globe brough there not by some army of hollywood but rather by local demand. And what creates this demand? Credibility, behavior, example and the free flow of information from that state to others, to name a few.
So what is a 2GE?
Simply put, a second generation empire is one that increases its “network coverage” by means other than military force. They include economic, political, legal and cultural forces. The power to increase or decrease network coverage is also not completely one-sided as both partners tend to have the ability to create, adjust or sever ties, though as usual, the stronger states tend to set the rules and have considerable advantages over smaller ones. Moreover, the network coverage of a 2GE may be on one or more levels as discussed above. While the US and Europe have considerable economic, legal, political and cultural ties, the US and China have largely economic ties with legal, political and cultural ones quickly growing due to the economic ones. There is almost always no element of physical force behind these different influences. A 2GE’s total power or network coverage can be measured by the sum total of the subnetworks’ coverage (economic, cultural etc). This also implies that a country may be simultaneously under various influences from more than one country at a time which may coincide peacefully or “fight” for dominance. Thus, the world should rather be seen as a complex mesh of competing, parallel and overlapping influences.
For more on that subject, I’d suggest visiting Dan and reading his many posts on 4GW. Just as warfare itself has evolved over the years into newer generations each becoming less reliant on direct physical violence as well as more complex due to dozens of new factors, so too have empires and I’d now like to invite Dan and Mark, bloggers far more knowledgable than myself on the subject of 4GW, to perhaps offer some comparison between the evolution of warfare and of empires.According to Henry Kissinger, the test of history for the United States will be whether we can turn our present predominant power into international consensus and our own principles into widely accepted international norms. That was the greatness acheived by Rome and Britain in their times. Great empires don’t compete against other systems per se, they strive to become “the system.”
I hope the second installment has cleared up any grey areas for the time being and is able to foster a more specific discussion of 2GE’s. As always, I look forward to suggestions, corrections, revisions and all constructive criticism which I’m sure there’s room for.
In the next installment, I plan to discuss Cultural Darwinism, Realism, International Organizations, the possibilities for future warfare and breakdown of globalization and finish up. Stay tuned !- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « This Week in Germany VII
- » Just 44 more days
COMMENTS / 21 COMMENTS
tdaxp added these pithy words on Aug 01 05 at 1:46 pmStart Your Week with the Blogosphere!
New South Dakota Blog: The Jim River Report
It’s like Google News and Drudge report for South Dakota
It’s still a “beta,” but I think it has potential. Check it out.
Over at Coming Anarchy, Chirol as written A History of Empires: Par…
tdaxp added these pithy words on Aug 02 05 at 1:10 amEmpires of Connectivity and Generations of Empire
“All Roads Lead to Rome,” by Jeff Vail, A Theory of Power: Jeff Vail’s Critique of Hierarchy & Empire, 5 October 2004, http://www.jeffvail.net/2004/10/all-roads-lead-to-rome.html.
The blogosphere is abuzz with empires. Chirol started it by talki…
Those who dare » Which way to Rome? added these pithy words on Aug 02 05 at 3:16 am[...] Of course the most interesting thing is not only what the original author wrote, but the intelligent commentary that followed. In fact, they were so good there’s even a part 2 to the debate of a magnanimous “new” empire here with even discussion following it. Trackback · [...]
4GW and Soft Power - Notes and Snippets « PurpleSlog added these pithy words on Sep 05 06 at 12:40 am[...] Coming Anarchy – History of Empires II [...]
mark safranski added these pithy words on 31 Jul 05 at 5:05 pmHi Chirol,
I particularly liked your neat summative:
“Great empires don’t compete against other systems per se, they strive to become “the system.”Â?
I’ll be happy to post on this one, the historiography of empire is a long, fascinating and deeply politicized one. I’m sure Dan will post as well as Dan Nexion of Duck of Minerva ( I’m kinda hoping he does, the diplomatic historian in me enjoys batting IR theorists about the ears ;o) j/k)
TheJew added these pithy words on 31 Jul 05 at 8:54 pmYour theory:
1) [Militarily] Successful countries/cultures (empires) are always [militarily] successful. They are therefore assigned the normative value “good”Â?.
2) They spread their goodness by conquest.
3) This spread of goodness leads to greater global trade.An alternate theory:
1) Shitty states need to become belligerent in order to distract the masses from the corruption and incompetence of the elites.
2) Shit spreads through violence.
3) Eventually the inefficient system that lead the original country to vent its pressures outwards runs out of outwards. The societal turmoil covered up by conquest reemerges and destroys the society.Exempli gratia: Russian Revolution, French Revolution (if Napoleon stayed out of Russia), Athens, Hitler, Rome (arguably), Persia, Egypt, Spain, and the Aztecs.
And now an incomplete list of empires that are not included above:
Indus
Sumeria-Akkad
Egypt
Shang
Babylon
Mitanni
Hittite
Zhao
Assyrian
Phonecia (Tyre)
Medes
Chaldea
Lydia
Achaemenid
Qin-Han
Parthia
Kushan
Mayan
Sassanid
Tang
Jin
Song
Ming
Aztec
Inca
Later Jin
Dan added these pithy words on 31 Jul 05 at 10:50 pmChirol,
Apologies for a rambling reply.
If I am reading correctly, you define a 2nd Generation Empire as
- Economics, not war, as the strongest connecting force
- A tradition of voluntary ruleset importation
- Reliance on “soft power” (culture, economic ties, etc) instead of “hard power” (projection of force)
Obviously, the European Union would fit this definition of 2GE. But such an entity is not new. The early Republic of Venice would be a 2GE. Created as a union of several small islands, the early Republic was a martime state that thrived on soft communication. Trusted as merchants by both Crusaders and Muslims, the Republic extended her influence throughout the Mediterranean. The Republic would come to the height of her power projecting security through the Adriatic and parts of the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
Eventually, the “2GE” Republic would evolve into a run-of-the-mill state fighting land wars on her doorstep. Machiavelli commented unfavorably on the wisdom of this change of strategy.
Other “2GEs” can also be found, but only lasted for a short time—the Latin League, the United States of America, the United Provinces of Central America, and the United Provinces of the Netherlands were all formed voluntarily and originally relied on soft power. This rarely worked as a long term strategy however The sunset of the American 2GE was probably 1789 (the replacement of the Articles of Confederation) or 1794 (President Washington crushing the Whiskey Rebellion). UPCA simply cracked up. Netherlands may have the best record as a 2GE, with a strong tradition of liberalism at home mixed with a strong tradition of exporting security over the ocean.
These examples raise a few questions
1. Does “2GE” an evolution from 1GE, or the reverse? Might 2GE really be 0GE, or “pre-Imperial Empire”? Might there be no pattern?
2. Can a state be simultaneously a 2GE and 1GE? I’m thinking of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, Victorian Britain, or the modern United Staes. Each relied on hard power in dealing with the Non-Integrating Gap while used soft power internally and with other countries in its Core, and a mix with its “integrating Gap.”
3. Is the PNM vision be a bontinent-spanning “2nd Generation Empire” (the US) leading through soft power a Core-spanning “2nd Generation Empire” (Barnett’s “Global Star Chamber”) leading through soft and hard power a World-spanning “1st Generation Empire.”
4. #3 has strong parrllells to the levels of Empire under Sovietism—the Imperial RSFSR leading the Imperial USSR leading the imperial Warsaw Pact. Of course multiple levels of federalism might be a component of many Empires.
4. Absent a vast disparity in size, will a 2GE defeat a 1GE? What would even be meant by “defeat”?Thanks for the great post!
Daniel Nexon added these pithy words on 31 Jul 05 at 11:48 pmTwo quesstions:
1) How is your notion of 2GE different from conventional notions of hegemonic orders?
2) In social and political systems, the kinds of ties your discuss involve bidirectional influence. Along with distinctions between “coverage” and, for example, density and strength of ties in a network, this makes me wonder: why is coverage a simple proxy for power?
Daniel Nexon added these pithy words on 31 Jul 05 at 11:57 pm“The Republic would come to the height of her power projecting security through the Adriatic and parts of the Mediterranean and Black Seas.”
And smashing the navies of its competitors, arranging for the sack of Constantinople, and so forth. By the Renaissance, the Venetians were often viewed as one of the most expansionist polities of Europe, and for good reason. There are amusing exchanges between Spanish and Venetian diplomats on this point.
“Can a state be simultaneously a 2GE and 1GE? I’m thinking of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, Victorian Britain, or the modern United Staes. Each relied on hard power in dealing with the Non-Integrating Gap while used soft power internally and with other countries in its Core, and a mix with its “integrating Gap.”Â?
I think Dan is on the mark here; the distinction between 1GE and 2GE Chirol’s drawing might be useful as an ideal type, but it doesn’t track very well with historical changes, except to the extent that post-decolonization ‘empires,’ such as the Soviet and the US, have been informal.
More commentary later at my blog.
Dan added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 12:27 amDaniel Nexon,
The Venetian Republic pacified the eastern Adriatic by 1200. In the early Crusades she was trading with both sides. Perhaps the 4th Crusade is the point where she morphed from 2GE to 1GE?
mark safranski added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 2:21 amA 2GE does not have to always be able to ” beat” a 1GE in a war in order to win that status. Following evolutionary logic a 2GE simply needs to have become a more sophisticated and complex class of polity.
I wish I had my copy of Norwich handy but I believe Venetian behavior in the sack of Constantinople had much to do with the personal ambitions of the mercurial and blind Doge and less state interest of Venice per se.
Chirol added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 10:09 amMark: Looking quite forward to your insight! It’s a complicated matter and my aim was to provide a good starting point from which to debate. As Dan has already shown above, there’s plenty to clear up and especially his question about 0GE’s.
TheJew: We’d firstly appreciate if you’d try to formulate your comments in a more intelligent way and back up your alternative theory with more evidence. I highly doubt any of the above commentors would classify great empires like Athens, Rome, or even the US who’ve contributed the most to civilization as “shitty.” Constructive comments please!
Dan: I hope I made clear that though violence was not the driving force for 2GE’s, it still plays a role. I should probably have added some graphics I considered on the subject.
Imagine one big arrow going into a country, and inside it are economics, politics, culture etc. The big arrow is violence.
Then imagine for 2GE the arrows going separately into the example country with force lurking in the background as say a dark cloud which occasionally fires off a lightning bolt when necessary.
I wouldn’t say a 2GE is totally reliant on soft power, but rather it uses that as its main weapon and force as its backup. As to your questions.
1) I was rather thinking of it as a development, just as mankind was slowly tamed its wilder side, so too have empires and thus I was’t thinking of it as pre-imperial. In my mind, I was trying to describe the development of previous empires into what they are today (US, UK, France, Spain etc). But your historical examples also call that into question. I’d perhaps divide 2GE’s into those who still maintain hard power and those without it.
2) I wouldn’t say simultaneously. I’ve long thought little of the debate between Realism and Liberalism (and its variants) because teh Core and the Gap run on different systems so each school of though works well in its own system and not in the other. THe main point is that Empires and humans in general, are now at a point where they would RATHER do good than bad (i.e. not use force) as long as its convenient. That’s the major development.
3) Interesting question. Something along those lines. I’ll have to think about that one.
4) See Mark’s later comment.
Dan added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 1:49 pmChirol,
Thanks for the great answers!
To continue the discussion:
2. Many writers, including Barnett, have openly discussed a double standard in international relations—Core treat other Core countries to very different standards that they treat those in the Gap. For just on example, Libya, Pakistan, and North Korea heard no end of complains about their nuclear program. However, Japan is at most weeks away from a weapon and Brazil might be working on one too.
So my question on a double-headed is if the US or the “Core” is a 2GE in the Core and a 1GE in the Gap.
4. I agree with Mark. However, I asked that question because that is William Lind’s test to see if something is a “generation” (from ZP).
Battlepanda added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 2:25 pmFirst time visitor here,
So why does a guy with a blog named “the coming anarchy” seems to write so glowingly of international authoritarian states? Is there some strain of strongman anarchy that I do not know about? Honestly curious.As for the Jew’s comments, don’t dismiss it out of hand. He makes points through snark. It’s his MO. In your case, I suppose a translation of his best point into serious mode would be “You seem to be cherry-picking characteristics of the most successful empires and then touting their success as a reason why projecting power outwards (either militarily or through other means of influence) is a good thing. I don’t think that is valid and you are begging the question.”
As for myself, I’m all for a Gun Germs and Steel style amoral probe into the pattern of historical development, and it is indeed fascinating to me whether the Mongols, despite their bad PR, actually dragged the Europeans kicking and screaming into modernizing. But I’m afraid that your line of thinking might slip into a kind of invisible hand-ish argument that though each empire only acted for the sake of its own dominion, the unintended consequence is improved trade and a technology transfer that generally raise and not lower the welfare of humanity. Therefore we should give our own power-hungriness full rein. In my opinion that would be a false conclusion indeed.
Yes, I’m aware that you never actually make the connection to the united state’s current quest for empire, but lets face it, a discussion like this does not exist in a vacuum.
phaedrus added these pithy words on 01 Aug 05 at 5:27 pmI think that any directed empire is doomed to failure as in the past. This was the great insight of the founding fathers – that directed attempts to exert influences(be they cultural, economic or political) are unlikely to suceed and open the door to suppression/repression. Having said that an “empire” that is born of self selection and acceptance of the rule of law is ideal – thus the best sort of modern or post-colonial empire is one that is created by the “unseen hand” rather than one directed by a country/culture or religon.
Curzon added these pithy words on 03 Aug 05 at 2:01 amBattlepanda: you’re not a first time visitor!
And to answer your question, Coming Anarchy is the name of an article/book by Robert Kaplan (see here for more). The three contributors here, from the US and Canada, each living in different countries, use this as a forum to write about world affairs, geopolitics, and other relevant (and occasionaly not so relevant) issues.
As for empire, perhaps the only way to stop the coming anarchy is an organizing power, with the US in the lead. Sure, empires are entirely interested in their own development—but so everyone else. Empires often have productive side elements which are too often overlooked, and by the amount of comments and trackbacks, it would look as if many people are enjoying it as well.
Battlepanda added these pithy words on 03 Aug 05 at 2:01 pmOops!
I thought the layout looked familiar. You’d think I’d remember such a distinct style, but no…Yes, I am enjoying the discussion. But I don’t know if empires really have the undeserved bad rap you think it does. Certainly the Roman empire is widely acknowledged to be an agent that furthered cultural and technological advancement. I think empires are kind of like mergers in business. Some are amazingly successful, yet many others are nothing more than the result of desperation and misplaced ambition that results in AOL-Time-Warner-esq lumbering behemouths that are encumbered rather than strengthened by their additions. Too often successful examples are blindly copied while the mistakes of the failures too seldem contemplated.
As for why people (including myself) usually take to moral disapproval of empire building tactics, the answer is twofold. Firstly, we live in America, a country that could never have reached its current prominence without breaking from the British empire and embracing democracy. It seems hypocritical somehow to now seek to augment our own empire. This is why we seek to shield our activities behind the veil of “spreading democracy.” In my opinion, this does a little to improve our moral standing, but also strikes a fatal blow towards out ability to effectively build empires. What would we do with a democratically elected rabidly fundamentalist Iran-friendly shiite government in Iraq? From a further historical perspective, the world is rife with countries that are still suffering from the malignant aftereffects of colonial rule. Iraq itself is a good example, as is the genocide in Rwanda and the continued economic malaise many Latin American countries.
Secondly, in criticizing the actions of a moral agent, the intentions matter along with the outcome. Let’s say I robbed a child of his lollipop. And lets say that we somehow know that the action turned out to be a positive for the child because that lollipop would have caused a painful cavity. I cannot get credit for that long-term benefit because all I took into account in making my decision was the fact that I wanted the lollipop and the child cannot put up an adequate defense of it. Same with the after-the-fact justifications of the U.S. in the invasions of Iraq and Afgahnistan as humanitarian missions.
Sunguh5307 added these pithy words on 10 Aug 05 at 3:41 amSuggested Reading:
Dinesh D’Souza “Two Cheers for Colonialism”
Andrew Bacevich “Imperial Tense”
But what you seem to be talking about is a ‘Liberal International Economic Order’, of the sort fashioned by the British. This, anyhow, is the case that Deepak Lal is trying to make in his book ‘In Defense of Empires’ which I strongly recommend.
But don’t get wrapped around the terminology. That is what everyone is selling ‘4/5GW or asymmetrical warfare, globalization- it’s all been done before. Just open up the classics- Thucydides, Plutarch, etc… it’s all there.
21st century technology and economics can mask or muffle the blow like a ‘velvet glove’, but it still requires an iron fist to make it happen. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing- you won’t find me complaining along the lines of some neo-Marxist global immiseration anti-imperialist nonsense, but in the effort of continuing this dialogue I don’t wish to delude myself of the costs.
And then we come to Iraq…
sun bin added these pithy words on 06 Oct 05 at 3:41 amanother analogy is to compare world order with political system inside a state, and compare the evolution in history.
i.e. hegemony/1GE at the world level is analagous to authoritarian/dictator at the state level, small states analogous to people (or subunits such as county, or states insdie a federation)
so there are 2 models:
1) 2GE such as a benign hegemony like USA
2) 3GE in the model of some modification of EU (perhaps a lot of modifications), basically “democracy” at the world level.The fundamental difference is that this 3GE would incorporate/absorb other small state in a manner that gives the same right and contribution to these new members. and such absorption is also done in a non-violence process.
now whether 3GE is practical (UN is not really working, and people are skeptical of EU), or do we need 2GE as a transition to 3GE in up to debate.
the implication (if we believe in such structure): does the US need to adopt the EU strategy, by absorbing central/south american stated into the federation to compete with EU? or simply join EU?
Dan added these pithy words on 06 Oct 05 at 4:31 am.... or continue adding states? Or more democracy-respecting forms of integration, such as NAFTA or CAFTA?
Considering that its a dying continent, there seems to be quite the burden to show that Europe/EU is a model for anything…
IJ added these pithy words on 06 Oct 05 at 9:59 amIn fairness, Dan, the EU and NATO are largely following the UN system.
The Cardinal’s website often refers to recently published books. One was ‘The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course’, by the president of the Council for Foreign Relations.
A reviewer says: “There is really no alternative to multilateralism, as the Bush Administration is finding out in its second term. . . In a globalizing world of cross-border flows of people, goods, money, ideas, viruses, weapons, etc., global integration is taking place no matter how desparately nations try to hold on to sovereignty.”
